Public report — FastEndpoints, published 3 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
212findings with an exact file:lineof 256 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
61/98dimensions across the health lenses45746 LoC · 82 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
FastEndpoints/FastEndpoints is in a workable but fragile state (51%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.
It is strongest in Architecture (92%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Security (42%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (54%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); security response headers (Content-Security-Policy (Web-Security Posture); Complete the data-lifecycle story (Data Retention).
For scale: Medium (~45,746 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~1.0 person-years (~1–2 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (92%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.
This codebase represents roughly ~1.0 person-years of build effort (about ~€150,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 42% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.4) — service/app, CQRS, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~1.0 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 42%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
130 modules, 116 dependencies — every dependency points down the layering, so there are no cycles. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
At a glance — Code Health · 56% · Adequate · gated by D17
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
23
High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection
7
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
1
High / Critical
A04:2021 — Insecure Design
1
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys securely, or confirm if this is handled by infrastructure. Next, harden the web security posture by adding essential security response headers to enforce defense in depth. Then, establish a complete data retention strategy by defining a maximum age for stored data and implementing a scheduled cleanup job. Finally, resolve the identified high and medium severity vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
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. 58 of 61 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 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 61 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 212 of 256 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR): PII/GDPR signals are heuristic pattern matches in code — they flag likely handling concerns, not legal compliance, and cannot trace where data actually flows at runtime.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (4): D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
38 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Md5.ComputeHash at 71. A further 4 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being OperationSchemaHelpers.CloneSchemaMemberValue at 21 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 33 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Md5.ComputeHash (cyclomatic 71) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Extensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TypeInfo.TypeInfo.ctor (cyclomatic 48) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ReflectionGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ComplexSourceBinder.BindPropertiesRecursively (cyclomatic 36) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ComplexSourceBinder.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 77 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 EndpointRouteMapper.Map (cognitive 72) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with EndpointRouteMapper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 EventExecutorWorker.RunAsync (cognitive 67) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with EventExecutorWorker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 TypeInfo.TypeInfo.ctor (cognitive 62) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ReflectionGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
851 test methods: 851 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 937 tests.
No assertions: VoidTests/IntegrationTests/FastEndpoints/RPCTests/VoidCommand.cs:5
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 1 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with TokenService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
59 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is TestHarness/Web/[Features]/TestCases/Swagger/Review/Endpoints.cs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt2.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 13 files · ×2TestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 20 filesTestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 11 filesSrc/Swagger/FastEndpoints.Swagger.csproj:4
+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 10 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.props (2), OpenApi.Kiota.csproj (2), Web.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
Resolve the 6 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AppFixture.Aot.cs (3), Endpoint.Properties.cs, EventHubStorage.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 13 files finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with OpenApi.Kiota.csproj (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
5 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Inconsistent naming for storage operations: 'CancelJobAsync' and 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync' use domain-specific verbs ('Cancel', 'Mark...Complete'), while 'SetEvent' uses a generic verb ('Set').
Inconsistent naming for event completion/storage: 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync' vs 'SetEvent'.
Inconsistent naming for job/event status updates: 'CancelJobAsync' vs 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync'.
Inconsistent naming for event storage: 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync' vs 'SetEvent'.
Inconsistent naming for job status updates: 'CancelJobAsync' vs 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync'.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for storage operations finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for event completion/storage finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for job/event status updates finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
2 of 41 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Split Web
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.
Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.
Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.
68 % of calls cross a namespace and 11 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What to do
Improve Navigability — currently 8.9/10. — 68 % of calls cross a namespace and 11 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×4.github/workflows/publish-to-nuget.yml:15detected by semgrep finding
Medium: unsafe-path-combine · ×3Src/ClientGen/Extensions.cs:148detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 4 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with publish-to-nuget.yml (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with Extensions.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.
Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 · ×12detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Critical CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 · ×2detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 · ×9detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
What to do
Resolve the 12 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Resolve the 9 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Likely personal-data (PII / GDPR) handling concerns — logging or storing data without safeguards.
Method: Heuristic PII/GDPR pattern scan via semgrep across the repo, using Watchdog's own ruleset (personal data reaching log/console sinks, URLs and query strings, or unprotected browser storage); matches map to severity and a 0-10 wide normalizer. NotApplicable when the scan runs and detects no PII/GDPR surface (no unearned 10); reported LOUDLY as a measurement gap, never as not-applicable, if the ruleset is missing from the analyzer image. Exhaustive, advisory-leaning; degrades on parse failure.
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-logSrc/Generator.Cli/Program.EndpointDiscovery.cs:45detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 1 High finding(s) in Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — start with Program.EndpointDiscovery.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d32_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
5 of 221 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Src/Core/ServiceResolver/IServiceResolver.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.
Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C4 · Data Retention7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).
Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.
A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob).
What to do
Complete the data-lifecycle story: an expiry limit (a declared maximum age for the stored data — a retention-age setting, or a store-level TTL where your storage offers one), a scheduled purge/cleanup job that enforces it, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×25) — Endpoint.Base.cs:33, Endpoint.Base.cs:36, Endpoint.Base.cs:40, …
What to do
Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
`MarkEventAsCompleteAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — InMemoryEventSubscriberStorage.cs:32, InMemoryEventHubStorage.cs:48
`PurgeStaleRecordsAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — InMemoryEventSubscriberStorage.cs:35
`GetCustomAttributes` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — ODataParamInfo.cs:21, ODataParamInfo.cs:24
`IsDefined` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — ODataParamInfo.cs:27
`HandleAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — Endpoint.cs:40, Endpoint.cs:52, Endpoint.cs:62
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — HitCounter.cs:61, HitCounter.cs:67, HitCounter.cs:71
What to do
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 39 of 41 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability6.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Only 16/34 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 34, 8 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
What to do
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (ActivitySource / AddMetrics) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
A changelog exists but has few versioned entries — keep it current with each release.
What to do
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().
Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.
EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.
What to do
Adopt a versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core: dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 122 use(s) across 47,577 production line(s) (~2.6/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
2 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
Only 0/439 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
What to do
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).
No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
What to do
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×2) — HttpClientExtensions.cs:639, AppFixture.Aot.cs:65
Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 148/189 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×10) — JobQueue.cs:228, JobQueue.cs:340, JobQueue.cs:445, …
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×15) — JobQueue.cs:471, JobQueue.cs:482, JobQueue.cs:520, …
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×5) — Endpoint.Properties.cs:108, EventHubStorage.cs:33, AppFixture.Aot.cs:67, …
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. On a teardown path letting it propagate is not an option (throwing out of `Dispose()` masks the failure already in flight and abandons the rest of the cleanup), so make the swallow deliberate instead: narrow the catch to the exception this release can actually raise, and record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems — or, if it truly cannot matter, say why in a comment on the catch. — AppFixture.Aot.cs:509
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.
Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×4) — MyResponseLogger.cs:12, MyRequestLogger.cs:10, SendOrderConfirmation.cs:9, …
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
~1.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 273 suppression(s) across the 211784 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 37 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) 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.
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.
D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (14 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 12 event handler(s); 45 CQRS handler(s)
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi.Kiota.Builder 1.29.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.Kiota.Abstractions 1.20.1 — Microsoft.Kiota.Abstractions 1.20.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: Microsoft.OpenApi 2.0.0 — Microsoft.OpenApi 2.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 10 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192 — MessagePack 2.5.192 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
NoWarnInCsproj — 8 warning codes suppressed in one element TestHarness/Web/Web.csproj:9— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 8 warning codes (CS1591;1701;1702;CA2016;RCS1090;CA2254;CS8618;ASP0014) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 8 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 8 warning codes suppressed in one element Src/Library/FastEndpoints.csproj:3— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 8 warning codes (1701;1702;CS1591;CS1573;CA2254;RCS1079;CS8618;IDE0022) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 8 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 8 warning codes suppressed in one element Tests/Directory.Build.props:7— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 8 warning codes (CS1587;CS1591;CS1998;NU5105;RCS1102;IDE1006;xUnit1051;CS8002) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 8 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj — 12 warning codes suppressed in one element Benchmark/Directory.Build.props:7— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 12 warning codes (1701;1702;RCS1090;RCS1163;RCS1102;CA2016;CS1587;CS1591;CS1998;NU5105;IDE1006;IDE0060) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 12 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj TestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9— CA2016 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj TestHarness/Sandbox/Source/Sandbox.csproj:8— CA2016 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj TestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9— ASP0014 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Src/Security/FastEndpoints.Security.csproj:4— IDE0022 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Src/Generator/FastEndpoints.Generator.csproj:13— NU5128 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Src/Generator.Cli/FastEndpoints.Generator.Cli.csproj:13— RS1035 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
EmptyCatchBlock Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.Properties.cs:108— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/Storage/EventHubStorage.cs:33— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Src/Swagger/ValidationSchemaProcessor.cs:231— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Src/Testing/AppFixture.Aot.cs:67— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Src/Testing/AppFixture.Aot.cs:488— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock Src/Testing/AppFixture.Aot.cs:509— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish-to-nuget.yml:15— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4.2.2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4.2.2 --jq .sha`. Note that `v4.2.2` is an exact release tag rather than a floating major: it is still mutable (a tag can be repointed), but by convention it moves only on a force-push, so pin the floating-major and branch references in this file first.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish-to-nuget.yml:18— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v4.3.1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v4.3.1 --jq .sha`. Note that `v4.3.1` is an exact release tag rather than a floating major: it is still mutable (a tag can be repointed), but by convention it moves only on a force-push, so pin the floating-major and branch references in this file first.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish-to-nuget.yml:44— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: NuGet/login@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `NuGet/login@v1.2.0`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/NuGet/login/commits/v1.2.0 --jq .sha`. Note that `v1.2.0` is an exact release tag rather than a floating major: it is still mutable (a tag can be repointed), but by convention it moves only on a force-push, so pin the floating-major and branch references in this file first.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish-to-nuget.yml:53— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: softprops/action-gh-release@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `softprops/action-gh-release@v2.3.2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/softprops/action-gh-release/commits/v2.3.2 --jq .sha`. Note that `v2.3.2` is an exact release tag rather than a floating major: it is still mutable (a tag can be repointed), but by convention it moves only on a force-push, so pin the floating-major and branch references in this file first.
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 13 files TestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9— The identical NoWarnInCsproj (`1701`) appears in 13 files (13 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 13 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 13 files TestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9— The identical NoWarnInCsproj (`1702`) appears in 13 files (13 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 13 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
Leaked secret: signing-key TestHarness/Web/[Features]/TestCases/Security/RefreshTokensTest/TokenService.cs:9— signing-key detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 20 files TestHarness/OpenApi.Kiota/OpenApi.Kiota.csproj:9— The identical NoWarnInCsproj (`CS1591`) appears in 20 files (20 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 20 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj repeated across 11 files Src/Swagger/FastEndpoints.Swagger.csproj:4— The identical NoWarnInCsproj (`CS1573`) appears in 11 files (11 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 11 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
High: watchdog-sensitive-personal-data-in-log Src/Generator.Cli/Program.EndpointDiscovery.cs:45— Special-category or directly-identifying personal data appears to be written to a log or console sink. Logs are copied, shipped to third parties and retained far longer than the data itself is lawfully needed. Log a stable pseudonymous reference instead of the value.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Attributes/Contracts/ReflectionCache.cs:7— #pragma warning disable CS1591 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Attributes/Enums/Source.cs:3— #pragma warning disable CS1591 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Attributes/JetBrains/Annotations.cs:27— #pragma warning disable 1591 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/ClientGen.Kiota/Extensions.cs:15— #pragma warning disable VSTHRD200 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/OpenApi.Kiota/Extensions.cs:18— #pragma warning disable VSTHRD200 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Binder/PropCache.cs:5— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Endpoint/Processor/PostProcessorContext.cs:5— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Endpoint/Processor/PreProcessorContext.cs:4— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Endpoint/Summary/DefaultProducesResponseMetadata.cs:3— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/OData/ODataParamInfo.cs:3— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Tests/IntegrationTests/FastEndpoints.Agents/EndpointInvokerBindingTests.cs:7— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Tests/IntegrationTests/FastEndpoints.Agents/McpToolDuplicateNameTests.cs:8— #pragma warning disable CS8618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Config/Config.cs:4— #pragma warning disable RCS1102,CA1822 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/DTOs/EmptyRequest.cs:1— #pragma warning disable RCS1074 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Extensions/HttpResponseExtensions.cs:12— #pragma warning disable IL2026 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Library/Messaging/Commands/CommandHandler.cs:37— #pragma warning disable CS8424 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Messaging/Messaging.Core/Interfaces/ICommandHandler.cs:53— #pragma warning disable CS8424 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Messaging/Messaging.Core/Interfaces/ICommandHandler.cs:85— #pragma warning disable CS8424 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Messaging/Messaging/Commands/IStreamCommandMiddleware.cs:19— #pragma warning disable CS8424 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Testing/Extensions.cs:4— #pragma warning disable IDE0022 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Src/Security/JwtCreationOptions.cs:60— #pragma warning disable CS1574 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable TestHarness/Web/[Features]/TestCases/Swagger/Review/Endpoints.cs:5— #pragma warning disable CS1574, CS1584, CS1581, CS1580, CS1734 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable Tests/IntegrationTests/FastEndpoints/FixtureTests/AssemblyFixtureTests.cs:29— #pragma warning disable xUnit1041 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
Hotspot: Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs— Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs changed 13 times in last 90 days, max complexity 28. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Src/Library/Main/MainExtensions.cs Src/Library/Main/MainExtensions.cs— Src/Library/Main/MainExtensions.cs changed 12 times in last 90 days, max complexity 19. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs— Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs changed 8 times in last 90 days, max complexity 26. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs— Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs changed 6 times in last 90 days, max complexity 34. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Src/Generator/ReflectionGenerator.cs Src/Generator/ReflectionGenerator.cs— Src/Generator/ReflectionGenerator.cs changed 3 times in last 90 days, max complexity 48. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.cs Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.cs— Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.cs changed 6 times in last 90 days, max complexity 19. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Src/Library/Binder/ComplexSourceBinder.cs Src/Library/Binder/ComplexSourceBinder.cs— Src/Library/Binder/ComplexSourceBinder.cs changed 3 times in last 90 days, max complexity 36. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Src/Library/Binder/BinderExtensions.cs Src/Library/Binder/BinderExtensions.cs— Src/Library/Binder/BinderExtensions.cs changed 7 times in last 90 days, max complexity 15. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs— Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs changed 4 times in last 90 days, max complexity 23. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiTypeSchemaFactory.cs Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiTypeSchemaFactory.cs— Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiTypeSchemaFactory.cs changed 4 times in last 90 days, max complexity 21. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Change coupling: EventExtensions.cs ↔ EventHub.cs Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventExtensions.cs— `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventExtensions.cs` and `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventHub.cs` change together 83% of the time (10 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: VersioningOptions.cs ↔ MainExtensions.cs Src/Library/Config/VersioningOptions.cs— `Src/Library/Config/VersioningOptions.cs` and `Src/Library/Main/MainExtensions.cs` change together 77% of the time (10 of the 13 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: EventSubscriber.cs ↔ GetPendingRecordsParams.cs Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/EventSubscriber.cs— `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/EventSubscriber.cs` and `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Common/Storage/GetPendingRecordsParams.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: EventSubscriberStorage.cs ↔ InMemoryEventSubscriberStorage.cs Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/Storage/EventSubscriberStorage.cs— `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/Storage/EventSubscriberStorage.cs` and `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/Storage/InMemoryEventSubscriberStorage.cs` change together 64% of the time (7 of the 11 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: RemoteConnectionExtensions.cs ↔ EventExtensions.cs Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Client/RemoteConnectionExtensions.cs— `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Client/RemoteConnectionExtensions.cs` and `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventExtensions.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 of the 12 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: EventSubscriber.cs ↔ InMemoryEventStorageRecord.cs Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/EventSubscriber.cs— `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/EventSubscriber.cs` and `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Common/Storage/InMemoryEventStorageRecord.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: EventHub.cs ↔ ServiceMethodProvider.cs Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventHub.cs— `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventHub.cs` and `Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/ServiceMethodProvider.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
TooManyMethods: Program Src/Generator.Cli/Program.PackageResolution.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 1143 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 77 methods, declared across 9 files: Generator.Cli/Program.PackageResolution.cs (24), Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs (13), Generator.Cli/Program.ProjectInspection.cs (12), Generator.Cli/Program.EndpointDiscovery.cs (9), +5 more file(s). The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: OperationSchemaHelpers Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaExtensions.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 433 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 57 methods, declared across 4 files: Schemas/OpenApiSchemaExtensions.cs (28), Schemas/OperationSchemaHelpers.cs (16), Schemas/OpenApiTypeSchemaFactory.cs (9), Schemas/OpenApiJsonHelpers.cs (4). The type holds no instance state, so there is no shared data to group its members by. To reduce it, split it by area instead: give each cohesive family of members its own smaller type, so no one type has to be read whole to change one of them.
TooManyMethods: EndpointDefinition Src/Library/Endpoint/Auxiliary/EndpointDefinition.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 354 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 56 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: OperationProcessor Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 564 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 45 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Endpoint Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 308 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 39 methods, declared across 5 files: Endpoint/Endpoint.cs (12), Endpoint/Endpoint.Hooks.cs (10), Endpoint/Endpoint.Validation.cs (10), Endpoint/Endpoint.Static.cs (6), +1 more file(s). To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TodoComment Src/Core/ServiceResolver/IServiceResolver.cs:21— //todo: need to figure out how to get rid of this from this interface! — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:174— //todo: this is not ideal in case two consumes dtos has a prop with the same name. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:691— //todo: remove when .net 9 sdk bug is fixed — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment Src/Swagger/ValidationSchemaProcessor.cs:186— //todo: figure out how to obtain the concrete instances of child validators from PolymorphicValidator<> — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Medium: unsafe-path-combine Src/ClientGen/Extensions.cs:148— String argument destinationPath is used to read or write data from a file via Path.Combine without direct sanitization via Path.GetFileName. If the path is user-supplied data this can lead to path traversal.
Medium: unsafe-path-combine Src/ClientGen/Extensions.cs:161— String argument destinationPath is used to read or write data from a file via Path.Combine without direct sanitization via Path.GetFileName. If the path is user-supplied data this can lead to path traversal.
Medium: unsafe-path-combine Src/ClientGen/Extensions.cs:189— String argument destinationPath is used to read or write data from a file via Path.Combine without direct sanitization via Path.GetFileName. If the path is user-supplied data this can lead to path traversal.
FileTooLong: Review/Endpoints.cs TestHarness/Web/[Features]/TestCases/Swagger/Review/Endpoints.cs:0— FileTooLong — 679 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
FileTooLong: Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:0— FileTooLong — 664 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:20— Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:20-30 | Src/Swagger/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:17-27 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:20` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:67— Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:67-77 | Src/Swagger/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:66-76 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:67` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Off the main sequence: FastEndpoints.OpenApi.Kiota — FastEndpoints.OpenApi.Kiota: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: FastEndpoints.Attributes(netstandard2.0) — FastEndpoints.Attributes(netstandard2.0): abstractness 0.06, instability 0.00, distance 0.94 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Md5.ComputeHash (cyclomatic 71) Src/Messaging/Messaging.Core/Extensions.cs:13— Md5.ComputeHash has cyclomatic complexity 71 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
TypeInfo.TypeInfo.ctor (cyclomatic 48) Src/Generator/ReflectionGenerator.cs:237— TypeInfo.TypeInfo.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ComplexSourceBinder.BindPropertiesRecursively (cyclomatic 36) Src/Library/Binder/ComplexSourceBinder.cs:50— ComplexSourceBinder.BindPropertiesRecursively has cyclomatic complexity 36 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
AccessControlGenerator.Initialize (cyclomatic 34) Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs:27— AccessControlGenerator.Initialize has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
EventExecutorWorker.RunAsync (cyclomatic 33) Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/EventExecutorWorker.cs:15— EventExecutorWorker.RunAsync has cyclomatic complexity 33 (threshold 15). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
JobQueue.CommandExecutorTask (cyclomatic 31) Src/JobQueues/JobQueue.cs:228— JobQueue.CommandExecutorTask has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 10 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
EndpointRouteMapper.Map (cyclomatic 29) Src/Library/Main/EndpointRouteMapper.cs:17— EndpointRouteMapper.Map has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
RequestBinder.RequestBinder.ctor (cyclomatic 28) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:42— RequestBinder.RequestBinder.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
HttpClientExtensions.AddObjectToForm (cyclomatic 26) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:893— HttpClientExtensions.AddObjectToForm has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
.GetTestUrlFor (cyclomatic 25) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:613— .GetTestUrlFor has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
RequestOperationTransformer.ApplyParamDescriptionsToBodySchema (cyclomatic 24) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.Requests.cs:141— RequestOperationTransformer.ApplyParamDescriptionsToBodySchema has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
DocumentProcessor.Process (cyclomatic 24) Src/Swagger/DocumentProcessor.cs:40— DocumentProcessor.Process has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 7 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
HttpClientExtensions.GetValueAsString (cyclomatic 23) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:1038— HttpClientExtensions.GetValueAsString has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
OperationProcessor.CreateParam (cyclomatic 23) Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:544— OperationProcessor.CreateParam has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
AgentRequestBuilder.BuildRequest (cyclomatic 23) Src/Agents/Shared/AgentRequestBuilder.cs:28— AgentRequestBuilder.BuildRequest has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
EndpointData.BuildEndpointDefinitions (cyclomatic 22) Src/Library/Main/EndpointData.cs:51— EndpointData.BuildEndpointDefinitions has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 10 of the 22 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 118). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
SchemaPlaceholderBuilder.Build (cyclomatic 21) Src/OpenApi/Export/SchemaPlaceholderBuilder.cs:16— SchemaPlaceholderBuilder.Build has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
.GenerateSampleJsonNode (cyclomatic 21) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSampleGenerator.cs:40— .GenerateSampleJsonNode has cyclomatic complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ValidationSchemaProcessor.CreateDefaultRules (cyclomatic 20) Src/Swagger/ValidationSchemaProcessor.cs:239— ValidationSchemaProcessor.CreateDefaultRules has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 20 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 336, 309, 367, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
Program.ResolveTypeName (cyclomatic 19) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:31— Program.ResolveTypeName has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Program.ResolveFullTypeExpression (cyclomatic 19) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:326— Program.ResolveFullTypeExpression has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Endpoint.ExecAsync (cyclomatic 19) Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.cs:55— Endpoint.ExecAsync has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
Endpoint.ValidateRequest (cyclomatic 19) Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.Validation.cs:13— Endpoint.ValidateRequest has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
MainExtensions.BuildRoute (cyclomatic 19) Src/Library/Main/MainExtensions.cs:151— MainExtensions.BuildRoute has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
HttpClientExtensions.HasCompatibleDtoShape (cyclomatic 19) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:742— HttpClientExtensions.HasCompatibleDtoShape has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
RequestBinder.BindFormValues (cyclomatic 18) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:304— RequestBinder.BindFormValues has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
A2AJsonRpcEndpoint.HandleAsync (cyclomatic 18) Src/Agents/A2A/A2AJsonRpcEndpoint.cs:11— A2AJsonRpcEndpoint.HandleAsync has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
GenericProcessorTypesGenerator.Transform (cyclomatic 17) Src/Generator/GenericProcessorTypesGenerator.cs:37— GenericProcessorTypesGenerator.Transform has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
JobQueue.ExecuteCommand (cyclomatic 17) Src/JobQueues/JobQueue.cs:340— JobQueue.ExecuteCommand has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
X402Middleware.TryValidatePayload (cyclomatic 17) Src/Library/X402/X402Middleware.cs:173— X402Middleware.TryValidatePayload has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
RequestOperationTransformer.CreateSampleFromSchema (cyclomatic 17) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.RequestExamples.cs:180— RequestOperationTransformer.CreateSampleFromSchema has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.TransformDocumentSchemas (cyclomatic 17) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.cs:7— OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.TransformDocumentSchemas has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
EndpointInvoker.InvokeAsync (cyclomatic 17) Src/Agents/Shared/EndpointInvoker.cs:28— EndpointInvoker.InvokeAsync has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.Enrich (cyclomatic 17) Src/Agents/Shared/FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.cs:30— FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.Enrich has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
AssemblyScanner.ScanForTypes (cyclomatic 16) Src/Core/AssemblyScanner/AssemblyScanner.cs:32— AssemblyScanner.ScanForTypes has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
RequestBinder.BindAsync (cyclomatic 16) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:235— RequestBinder.BindAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
EndpointExtensions.Initialize (cyclomatic 16) Src/Library/Endpoint/Auxiliary/EndpointExtensions.cs:27— EndpointExtensions.Initialize has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ReflectionExtension.IsSubClassOfGeneric (cyclomatic 16) Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:8— ReflectionExtension.IsSubClassOfGeneric has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
No assertions: Void Tests/IntegrationTests/FastEndpoints/RPCTests/VoidCommand.cs:5— Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
BarePragmaDisable repeated across 12 files Benchmark/Runner/Benchmarks.cs:6— The identical BarePragmaDisable (`#pragma warning disable CA1822`) appears in 12 files (12 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 12 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
D17 · Explicit Debt· BareSuppressMessage repeated 13 times in 8 files · ×1
BareSuppressMessage repeated 13 times in 8 files Src/Agents/A2A/A2AInvocationResultMapper.cs:93— The identical BareSuppressMessage (`SuppressMessage`) appears 13 times in 8 files — one decision applied repeatedly (e.g. the same rule silenced on every overload of a fluent API), not 13 independent debts. Decide it once — at the type or project level, or by fixing the underlying pattern — rather than occurrence-by-occurrence. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
BareSuppressMessage repeated across 37 files Src/AspVersioning/Extensions.cs:17— The identical BareSuppressMessage (`UnconditionalSuppressMessage`) appears in 37 files (88 occurrences) — a single repo-wide policy (e.g. a Directory.Build.props decision or an idiomatic suppression), not 88 independent debts. Decide it once centrally rather than file-by-file. (Every occurrence still counts toward the score and metrics.)
Monorepo: only 1 of 3 solutions was scored — This repository contains 3 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `FastEndpoints.slnx` — the other 2 (`NativeAot.slnx`, `TestHarness/Sandbox/Sandbox.slnx`) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.
LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[1].suggestion | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1172.
EndpointRouteMapper.Map (cognitive 72) Src/Library/Main/EndpointRouteMapper.cs:17— EndpointRouteMapper.Map has cognitive complexity 72 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
EventExecutorWorker.RunAsync (cognitive 67) Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote.Core/Client/Events/EventExecutorWorker.cs:15— EventExecutorWorker.RunAsync has cognitive complexity 67 (threshold 15). Of this number, 66 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TypeInfo.TypeInfo.ctor (cognitive 62) Src/Generator/ReflectionGenerator.cs:237— TypeInfo.TypeInfo.ctor has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
JobQueue.CommandExecutorTask (cognitive 62) Src/JobQueues/JobQueue.cs:228— JobQueue.CommandExecutorTask has cognitive complexity 62 (threshold 15). Of this number, 57 points are the body's own statements and 5 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ComplexSourceBinder.BindPropertiesRecursively (cognitive 47) Src/Library/Binder/ComplexSourceBinder.cs:50— ComplexSourceBinder.BindPropertiesRecursively has cognitive complexity 47 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RequestBinder.RequestBinder.ctor (cognitive 42) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:42— RequestBinder.RequestBinder.ctor has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
.GetTestUrlFor (cognitive 42) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:613— .GetTestUrlFor has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). Of this number, 41 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RequestOperationTransformer.ApplyParamDescriptionsToBodySchema (cognitive 42) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.Requests.cs:141— RequestOperationTransformer.ApplyParamDescriptionsToBodySchema has cognitive complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AgentRequestBuilder.BuildRequest (cognitive 41) Src/Agents/Shared/AgentRequestBuilder.cs:28— AgentRequestBuilder.BuildRequest has cognitive complexity 41 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EndpointData.BuildEndpointDefinitions (cognitive 37) Src/Library/Main/EndpointData.cs:51— EndpointData.BuildEndpointDefinitions has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). Of this number, 26 points are the body's own statements and 11 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
HttpClientExtensions.AddObjectToForm (cognitive 37) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:893— HttpClientExtensions.AddObjectToForm has cognitive complexity 37 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RequestBinder.BindFormValues (cognitive 34) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:304— RequestBinder.BindFormValues has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DocumentProcessor.Process (cognitive 33) Src/Swagger/DocumentProcessor.cs:40— DocumentProcessor.Process has cognitive complexity 33 (threshold 15). Of this number, 27 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 4 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Endpoint.ValidateRequest (cognitive 30) Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.Validation.cs:13— Endpoint.ValidateRequest has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.BuildAnalysisInputs (cognitive 29) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.SourceParsing.cs:25— Program.BuildAnalysisInputs has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.ApplyGenericParameterMap (cognitive 28) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:225— Program.ApplyGenericParameterMap has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.ResolveFullTypeExpression (cognitive 27) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:326— Program.ResolveFullTypeExpression has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
EventDispatcherWorker.RunAsync (cognitive 26) Src/Messaging/Messaging.Remote/Server/Events/EventDispatcherWorker.cs:12— EventDispatcherWorker.RunAsync has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ReflectionExtension.IsSubClassOfGeneric (cognitive 26) Src/OpenApi/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:8— ReflectionExtension.IsSubClassOfGeneric has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15). Of this number, 25 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ResponseOperationTransformer.FixPolymorphism (cognitive 25) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.Responses.cs:160— ResponseOperationTransformer.FixPolymorphism has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
DocumentSchemaHelpers.DeduplicateOperationSchemaVariants (cognitive 25) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/DocumentSchemaHelpers.cs:130— DocumentSchemaHelpers.DeduplicateOperationSchemaVariants has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
.GenerateSampleJsonNode (cognitive 25) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSampleGenerator.cs:40— .GenerateSampleJsonNode has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.TransformDocumentSchemas (cognitive 25) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.cs:7— OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.TransformDocumentSchemas has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
ReflectionExtension.IsSubClassOfGeneric (cognitive 25) Src/Swagger/ValidationProcessor/Extensions/ReflectionExtensions.cs:7— ReflectionExtension.IsSubClassOfGeneric has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.Enrich (cognitive 25) Src/Agents/Shared/FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.cs:30— FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.Enrich has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DocumentVersionFilter.Apply (cognitive 24) Src/OpenApi/Documents/DocumentVersionFilter.cs:37— DocumentVersionFilter.Apply has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SchemaPlaceholderBuilder.Build (cognitive 24) Src/OpenApi/Export/SchemaPlaceholderBuilder.cs:16— SchemaPlaceholderBuilder.Build has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
OperationProcessor.CreateParam (cognitive 24) Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:544— OperationProcessor.CreateParam has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
ValidationSchemaProcessor.ApplyValidationRule (cognitive 24) Src/Swagger/ValidationSchemaProcessor.cs:174— ValidationSchemaProcessor.ApplyValidationRule has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Program.ResolveTypeName (cognitive 23) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:31— Program.ResolveTypeName has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Program.ShouldSkipType (cognitive 23) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:115— Program.ShouldSkipType has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Endpoint.ExecAsync (cognitive 23) Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.cs:55— Endpoint.ExecAsync has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
OperationProcessor.AddAttributeBasedParameters (cognitive 23) Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:295— OperationProcessor.AddAttributeBasedParameters has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ValidationSchemaProcessor.CreateDefaultRules (cognitive 23) Src/Swagger/ValidationSchemaProcessor.cs:239— ValidationSchemaProcessor.CreateDefaultRules has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 23 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 6 function literals inside it that branch (lines 367, 336, 309, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
.IsMalformedJsonArrayString (cognitive 22) Src/Library/Binder/BinderExtensions.cs:422— .IsMalformedJsonArrayString has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
MainExtensions.BuildRoute (cognitive 22) Src/Library/Main/MainExtensions.cs:151— MainExtensions.BuildRoute has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
RequestParameterMetadataApplicator.Apply (cognitive 22) Src/OpenApi/Operations/Parameters/RequestParameterMetadataApplicator.cs:15— RequestParameterMetadataApplicator.Apply has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
OpenApiSchemaReferenceCollector.CollectReferencedSchemas (cognitive 22) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaReferenceCollector.cs:29— OpenApiSchemaReferenceCollector.CollectReferencedSchemas has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
Program.ReadNuGetPackageCompileAssemblies (cognitive 21) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.PackageResolution.cs:48— Program.ReadNuGetPackageCompileAssemblies has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ReflectionGenerator.RenderClass (cognitive 21) Src/Generator/ReflectionGenerator.cs:66— ReflectionGenerator.RenderClass has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
EndpointExtensions.Initialize (cognitive 21) Src/Library/Endpoint/Auxiliary/EndpointExtensions.cs:27— EndpointExtensions.Initialize has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.SplitBalanced (cognitive 20) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.EndpointDiscovery.cs:156— Program.SplitBalanced has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
Program.SelectAssetsTargetKey (cognitive 20) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.PackageResolution.cs:115— Program.SelectAssetsTargetKey has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
IdempotencyPolicy.CacheRequestAsync (cognitive 20) Src/Library/Endpoint/Idempotency/IdempotencyPolicy.cs:12— IdempotencyPolicy.CacheRequestAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
.AddSwaggerDefaults (cognitive 20) Src/Library/Main/EndpointProducesMetadata.cs:12— .AddSwaggerDefaults has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.
EndpointProducesMetadata.RouteParamNames (cognitive 20) Src/Library/Main/EndpointProducesMetadata.cs:121— EndpointProducesMetadata.RouteParamNames has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
OperationMetadataTransformer.ApplyAutoTag (cognitive 20) Src/OpenApi/Operations/Metadata/OperationTransformer.Metadata.cs:15— OperationMetadataTransformer.ApplyAutoTag has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.RewritePathItemSchemas (cognitive 20) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.cs:61— OpenApiSchemaGraphTransformer.RewritePathItemSchemas has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
OpenApiSchemaReferenceCollector.CollectPathItemRefs (cognitive 20) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaReferenceCollector.cs:77— OpenApiSchemaReferenceCollector.CollectPathItemRefs has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
AppFixture.EnumerateProjectBuildInputs (cognitive 20) Src/Testing/AppFixture.Aot.cs:298— AppFixture.EnumerateProjectBuildInputs has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
AgentRequestBuilder.AddQueryValues (cognitive 20) Src/Agents/Shared/AgentRequestBuilder.cs:209— AgentRequestBuilder.AddQueryValues has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Program.ProcessTypeExpression (cognitive 19) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:271— Program.ProcessTypeExpression has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
GenericProcessorTypesGenerator.Transform (cognitive 19) Src/Generator/GenericProcessorTypesGenerator.cs:37— GenericProcessorTypesGenerator.Transform has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
JobQueue.ExecuteCommand (cognitive 19) Src/JobQueues/JobQueue.cs:340— JobQueue.ExecuteCommand has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ResponseOperationTransformer.ApplyParamDescriptions (cognitive 19) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.Responses.cs:202— ResponseOperationTransformer.ApplyParamDescriptions has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
OperationProcessor.BuildRequestParamDescriptions (cognitive 19) Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:863— OperationProcessor.BuildRequestParamDescriptions has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
OperationProcessor.ApplyRequestExamples (cognitive 19) Src/Swagger/OperationProcessor.cs:948— OperationProcessor.ApplyRequestExamples has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PropertyNameResolver.ConvertPropertyPath (cognitive 18) Src/OpenApi/Infrastructure/PropertyNameResolver.cs:23— PropertyNameResolver.ConvertPropertyPath has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RequestOperationTransformer.CreateSampleFromSchema (cognitive 18) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.RequestExamples.cs:180— RequestOperationTransformer.CreateSampleFromSchema has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
OpenApiSchemaTraversal.RewriteChildSchemas (cognitive 18) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/OpenApiSchemaTraversal.cs:81— OpenApiSchemaTraversal.RewriteChildSchemas has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
AgentPublishedNameResolver.SanitizeGenerated (cognitive 18) Src/Agents/Shared/AgentPublishedNameResolver.cs:42— AgentPublishedNameResolver.SanitizeGenerated has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
NuGetPackageTypeLoader.ResolveFullNameCore (cognitive 17) Src/Generator.Cli/NuGetPackageTypeLoader.cs:139— NuGetPackageTypeLoader.ResolveFullNameCore has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
AccessControlGenerator.Initialize (cognitive 17) Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs:27— AccessControlGenerator.Initialize has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
.ValueParser (cognitive 17) Src/Library/Binder/BinderExtensions.cs:108— .ValueParser has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
.ComplexBindMeta (cognitive 17) Src/Library/Binder/BinderExtensions.cs:211— .ComplexBindMeta has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
RequestBinder.BindUserClaims (cognitive 17) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:465— RequestBinder.BindUserClaims has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EndpointSecurityPolicies.AddSecurityPolicy (cognitive 17) Src/Library/Main/EndpointSecurityPolicies.cs:34— EndpointSecurityPolicies.AddSecurityPolicy has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 5 function literals inside it that branch (lines 41, 52, 60, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
HttpClientExtensions.HasCompatibleDtoShape (cognitive 17) Src/Library/Testing/HttpClientExtensions.cs:742— HttpClientExtensions.HasCompatibleDtoShape has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
RequestBodyOverrideApplicator.Apply (cognitive 17) Src/OpenApi/Operations/Requests/RequestBodyOverrideApplicator.cs:9— RequestBodyOverrideApplicator.Apply has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
XmlDocSchemaTransformer.TransformAsync (cognitive 17) Src/OpenApi/Schemas/Transformers/XmlDocSchemaTransformer.cs:9— XmlDocSchemaTransformer.TransformAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
SchemaNameGenerator.Generate (cognitive 17) Src/Swagger/SchemaNameGenerator.cs:15— SchemaNameGenerator.Generate has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
McpStructuredContentMapper.ValidateJsonObject (cognitive 17) Src/Agents/Mcp/McpStructuredContentMapper.cs:84— McpStructuredContentMapper.ValidateJsonObject has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
A2AJsonRpcEndpoint.HandleAsync (cognitive 17) Src/Agents/A2A/A2AJsonRpcEndpoint.cs:11— A2AJsonRpcEndpoint.HandleAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ParentPrefixIndex.EnsureInitialized (cognitive 16) Src/Library/Binder/IPrefixedValueSource.cs:132— ParentPrefixIndex.EnsureInitialized has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RequestBinder.BindAsync (cognitive 16) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:235— RequestBinder.BindAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
RequestBinder.Bind (cognitive 16) Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:435— RequestBinder.Bind has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
OpenApiExporter.ExportRequestedFormatsAsync (cognitive 16) Src/OpenApi/Export/OpenApiExporter.cs:31— OpenApiExporter.ExportRequestedFormatsAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
RequestOperationTransformer.HandleParameters (cognitive 16) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.Requests.cs:40— RequestOperationTransformer.HandleParameters has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ResponseOperationTransformer.FixBinaryFormats (cognitive 16) Src/OpenApi/Operations/OperationTransformer.Responses.cs:77— ResponseOperationTransformer.FixBinaryFormats has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Extensions.GetAllRequestProperties (cognitive 16) Src/Swagger/Extensions.cs:423— Extensions.GetAllRequestProperties has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EndpointInvoker.InvokeAsync (cognitive 16) Src/Agents/Shared/EndpointInvoker.cs:28— EndpointInvoker.InvokeAsync has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.ParsePropertyPath (cognitive 16) Src/Agents/Shared/FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.cs:146— FluentValidationSchemaEnricher.ParsePropertyPath has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ClassTooLong: RequestBinder Src/Library/Binder/RequestBinder.cs:0— ClassTooLong — 408 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 23 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity. 4 floating ref(s) across 1 workflow file(s). Each floating ref is itemized at file:line by the SAST (D29) lens.
Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:360— Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:360-379 | Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:416-435 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:360` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs:596— Src/Generator/AccessControlGenerator.cs:596-605 | Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.Base.cs:54-62 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/OpenApi/Infrastructure/RouteTemplateHelpers.cs:41— Src/OpenApi/Infrastructure/RouteTemplateHelpers.cs:41-48 | Src/Agents/Shared/AgentRequestBuilder.cs:377-384 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:189— Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:189-194 | Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:198-203 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs:189` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the test suite built and its tests PASSED, but the run produced no coverage data — `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` found no data collector, which is what a test project with no `coverlet.collector` PackageReference does. Nothing is wrong with the suite or the build; there is simply no coverage instrumentation wired up. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 59 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: TestHarness/Web/[Features]/TestCases/Swagger/Review/Endpoints.cs, Src/Library/Endpoint/Endpoint.Setup.cs, Src/Swagger/Extensions.cs, Src/Generator.Cli/Program.PackageResolution.cs, Src/Generator.Cli/Program.TypeResolution.cs, Src/Generator.Cli/NuGetPackageTypeLoader.cs, Src/OpenApi.Kiota/Extensions.cs, Src/OpenApi/Extensions.cs (+51 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
Thin analysable surface across projects — 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Sandbox` with 17 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 88 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.94 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
Inconsistent naming for storage operations: 'CancelJobAsync' and 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync' use domain-specific verbs ('Cancel', 'Mark...Complete'), while 'SetEvent' uses a generic verb ('Set'). — Consider renaming 'SetEvent' to 'StoreEventAsync' or 'SaveEventAsync' to align with the specific action verbs used elsewhere. (symbols: FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.CancelJobAsync, FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.MarkEventAsCompleteAsync, FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.SetEvent)
Inconsistent naming for event completion/storage: 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync' vs 'SetEvent'. — Align on a consistent verb for event lifecycle management, e.g., 'CompleteEventAsync' and 'StoreEventAsync'. (symbols: FastEndpoints.IEventSubscriberStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.MarkEventAsCompleteAsync, FastEndpoints.IEventStorageRecord.SetEvent<TEvent>)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent naming for job/event status updates · ×1
Inconsistent naming for job/event status updates: 'CancelJobAsync' vs 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync'. — Use consistent terminology for status updates, e.g., 'CancelJobAsync' and 'CompleteJobAsync' or 'MarkJobAsCompleteAsync'. (symbols: FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.CancelJobAsync, FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.MarkEventAsCompleteAsync)
Inconsistent naming for event storage: 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync' vs 'SetEvent'. — Rename 'SetEvent' to 'StoreEventAsync' or 'SaveEventAsync' to match the specificity of 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync'. (symbols: FastEndpoints.IEventSubscriberStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.MarkEventAsCompleteAsync, FastEndpoints.IEventStorageRecord.SetEvent<TEvent>)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent naming for job status updates · ×1
Inconsistent naming for job status updates: 'CancelJobAsync' vs 'MarkEventAsCompleteAsync'. — Standardize on 'CancelJobAsync' and 'CompleteJobAsync' (or 'MarkJobAsCompleteAsync') for job-related operations. (symbols: FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.CancelJobAsync, FastEndpoints.IJobStorageProvider<TStorageRecord>.MarkEventAsCompleteAsync)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling· Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
Bounded contexts not declared — At 45k LoC across 82 projects the codebase is both large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
Split Web — Generic 'Web' catch-all at 56k LoC across 76 namespaces is a sprawling grab-bag. Suggested: by namespace: routing, middleware, services
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
Further orphaned files (smaller) — 5 of 221 analysed file(s) have no living knowledge left — their last meaningful change has decayed away, so if one breaks, no one currently understands it (counted over production source files of roughly 100 lines or more, excluding tests, vendored, generated and example/demo trees, largest first). None is large enough to earn a read-through of its own, so this row stands in for the per-file rows rather than raising one each — largest first: Src/Core/ServiceResolver/IServiceResolver.cs, Src/Messaging/Messaging/Events/EventBus.cs, Src/Library/Endpoint/Idempotency/IdempotencyPolicy.cs (and 2 more). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI — nothing binds a released artifact to the build that produced it, so a consumer cannot tell your artifact from a substituted one. On GitHub Actions, `actions/attest-build-provenance` (or slsa-github-generator) emits one from the job's own OIDC identity; elsewhere, run `cosign attest` over the released artifact from the release pipeline and publish the attestation beside it.
No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI — sign your released artifacts with whatever your ecosystem ships (a GPG/minisign detached signature — or `cosign sign-blob` — over the release archives, or over a checksum file published alongside them, Authenticode via signtool, or `dotnet nuget sign` for packages) so consumers can verify what you built.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing· No SBOM · ×1
No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found — produce one with what your ecosystem ships (`sbom-tool generate` (install it with `dotnet tool install --global Microsoft.Sbom.DotNetTool`) or `dotnet CycloneDX` over the solution, `syft` (or `anchore/sbom-action` in CI) over the source tree or released image). Publish it as a release asset (`*.spdx.json` / `*.cdx.json`) so consumers can see what they are installing.
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
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.
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.
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.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
0
—
Run 019fc8d3-0319-7482-a590-98d9bfae1d36 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 75 field(s) across 5 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.
Issues: 40 · Warnings: 201 · Recommendations: 14 · Info: 1 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 03-08-2026 @ 18:11 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.