Executive summary
Preview (pre-1.0). This repo hasn't declared a stable release, so it's judged against a relaxed, pre-production bar.
The system holds an adequate standing with a composite health score of 59%. While the codebase is small and manageable, its operational readiness is fragile. This gap between code quality and deployment safety creates unnecessary risk for delivery speed and reliability, suggesting that while the asset is not broken, it is not yet robust enough for confident, independent scaling.
The value at stake is modest, comprising only 96 lines of production logic. Rebuilding this core would cost approximately €2,600 and require minimal effort. However, the true cost lies in the hidden liabilities of poor operational practices. The system lacks automated security gates and reliable testing feedback loops, meaning every change carries a disproportionate risk of introducing defects or security regressions that could disrupt service or expose sensitive data.
The primary risk is operational fragility. With a readiness score of 49%, the system lacks the safety nets required for stable operation. There is no automated security scanning in the pipeline, and test reliability is unmeasured. This means defects and security flaws can slip into production unnoticed, leading to costly hotfixes, potential outages, and increased exposure to threats. The absence of a changelog further complicates tracking what has shipped, hindering accountability and auditability.
Conversely, the code itself is well-structured and clean. With high scores in code health and maturity, the logic is maintainable and easy for new engineers to understand. The architecture is sound, and there is no significant technical debt in the code structure itself. This provides a solid foundation that makes future improvements straightforward and low-cost.
Focus first on hardening the delivery pipeline. Implementing automated static analysis and secret scanning in the continuous integration process offers the highest leverage. This single step prevents security regressions from reaching production, stabilizes the release process, and protects the business from immediate exposure. Once this safety net is in place, the team can confidently iterate on the clean, well-structured codebase without fear of introducing hidden risks.
Raise Readiness 49 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 59 → ~67.
New since the last scan (100+)
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-AI/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AI/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Magic/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Magic/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: AIClient generators/hawaii/Generated-AI/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: AIClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: MagicClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Magic/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: MagicClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-AISearch/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AISearch/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-AIGateway/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AIGateway/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Access/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Access/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: AccessClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Access/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: AccessClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Email/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Email/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Stream/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Stream/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Builds/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Builds/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Builds/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Builds/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Gateway/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Gateway/Client.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: GatewayClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Gateway/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: GatewayClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: StreamClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Stream/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Analytics/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Builds/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Calls/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Containers/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.D1/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.DurableObjects/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventNotifications/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventSubscriptions/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Hyperdrive/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Images/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.KV/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.LoadBalancers/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Logs/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Mesh/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.MoQ/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Pages/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Pipelines/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Queues/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.R2/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.R2Catalog/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Registrar/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.ResourceLibrary/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.SecretsStore/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.SecurityCenter/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: StreamClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Stream/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Tunnels/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Vectorize/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.VulnScanner/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.WaitingRooms/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Workers/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Workflows/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Tenancy/CloudEdge.Tenancy.Organizations/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Tenancy/CloudEdge.Tenancy.Tenants/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Generated-Workflows/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Workflows/Types.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Workflows/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Workflows/Types.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: EmailClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Email/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: EmailClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: AIGatewayClient generators/hawaii/Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: AIGatewayClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Analytics/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Builds/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Calls/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Containers/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.D1/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.DurableObjects/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventNotifications/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventSubscriptions/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Hyperdrive/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Images/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.KV/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.LoadBalancers/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Logs/OpenApiHttp.fs
- D3 · TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/OpenApiHttp.fs
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €850–€4,300
| Cost to rebuild | €850–€4,300 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 59% quality) |
| Size & shape | Hobby · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1 | 2 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive | 3 Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV | 4 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http | 5 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types | 6 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http | 7 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types | 8 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http | 9 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types | 10 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http | 11 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types | 12 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http | 13 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types | 14 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http | 15 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types | 16 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering | 17 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering.Http | 18 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Queues | 19 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context | 20 Sample.CLI.Config | 21 Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers | 22 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects | 23 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers | 24 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters | 25 Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers | 26 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI | 27 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp | 28 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway | 29 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp | 30 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch | 31 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp | 32 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access | 33 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp | 34 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics | 35 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp | 36 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG | 37 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp | 38 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers | 39 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage | 40 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering.Http | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Queues | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 Sample.CLI.Config | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI | 226 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway | 48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch | 26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access | 112 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG | 9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers | 5 | 13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket | 2 |
21→1 Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.D1DatabaseFidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.D1ExecResultFidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.D1Result`1
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1 can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.D1.Helpers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→19 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context✕
- Type pairs
- 6 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.RequestFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.ResponseFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectStub→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.RequestFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectStub→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.ResponseFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.ServiceBinding→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.RequestFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.ServiceBinding→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.Response
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→2 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive✕
- Type pairs
- 7 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.ConnectionPoolSettingsFidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.HyperdriveFidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.HyperdriveCachingFidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.HyperdriveConfigFidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.SocketFidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.HyperdriveBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.HyperdriveFidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.HyperdriveBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Socket
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→2 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive) reference.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters.DatabaseAdapters→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Hyperdrive
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Hyperdrive.Helpers.DatabaseAdapters, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→3 Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.KVKeyFidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.KVListResultFidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.KVNamespace
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.KV.Helpers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→5 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types✕
- Type pairs
- 226 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchCreateInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchCreateInstancesPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchCreateTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchCreateTokensPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchDeleteInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchDeleteTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchFetchInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchFetchTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceChangeJobStatusFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceChangeJobStatusPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceChatCompletionFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceChatCompletionPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceCreateJobFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceCreateJobPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceGetJobFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceListJobLogsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceListJobsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceSearchFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchInstanceSearchPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchListInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchListTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchStatsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchUpdateInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchUpdateInstancesPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.AIClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types.AiSearchUpdateTokens
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Types can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
27→4 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiValueFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.RequestPart
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AI.Http.OpenApiHttp, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→7 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types✕
- Type pairs
- 48 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateDatasetFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateDatasetPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateEvaluationsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateEvaluationsPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateGatewayFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateGatewayPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateProvidersFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigCreateProvidersPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigDeleteDatasetFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigDeleteEvaluationsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigDeleteGatewayFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigDeleteGatewayDynamicRouteFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigDeleteGatewayLogsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigDeleteProvidersFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigFetchDatasetFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigFetchEvaluationsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigFetchGatewayFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigGetGatewayDynamicRouteFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigGetGatewayDynamicRouteVersionFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigGetGatewayLogDetailFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigGetGatewayLogRequestFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigGetGatewayLogResponseFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigGetGatewayUrlFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigListDatasetFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.AIGatewayClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types.AigConfigListEvaluations
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Types can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→6 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiValueFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.RequestPart
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway.Http.OpenApiHttp, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→9 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types✕
- Type pairs
- 26 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchCreateInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchCreateInstancesPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchCreateTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchCreateTokensPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchDeleteInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchDeleteTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchFetchInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchFetchTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceChangeJobStatusFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceChangeJobStatusPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceChatCompletionFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceChatCompletionPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceCreateJobFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceCreateJobPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceGetJobFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceListJobLogsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceListJobsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceSearchFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchInstanceSearchPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchListInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchListTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchStatsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchUpdateInstancesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchUpdateInstancesPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.AISearchClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types.AiSearchUpdateTokens
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Types can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→8 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiValueFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.RequestPart
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AISearch.Http.OpenApiHttp, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→11 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types✕
- Type pairs
- 112 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types) references. Showing 25 of them; the rest are in namespace-graph.json in this report's bundle.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsAddAnApplicationFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsDeleteAnAccessApplicationFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsGetAnAccessApplicationFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsListAccessApplicationsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsPatchUpdateAccessApplicationSettingsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsPutUpdateAccessApplicationSettingsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsRevokeServiceTokensFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsTestAccessPoliciesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessApplicationsUpdateAnAccessApplicationFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessAuthenticationLogsGetAccessAuthenticationLogsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessCustomPagesCreateACustomPageFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessCustomPagesDeleteACustomPageFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessCustomPagesGetACustomPageFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessCustomPagesListCustomPagesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessCustomPagesUpdateACustomPageFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGatewayCaAddAnSSHCaFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGatewayCaDeleteAnSSHCaFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGatewayCaListSSHCaFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGroupsCreateAnAccessGroupFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGroupsDeleteAnAccessGroupFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGroupsGetAnAccessGroupFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGroupsListAccessGroupsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessGroupsUpdateAnAccessGroupFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessIdentityProvidersAddAnAccessIdentityProviderFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.AccessClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types.AccessIdentityProvidersDeleteAnAccessIdentityProvider
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Types can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→10 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiValueFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.RequestPart
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Access.Http.OpenApiHttp, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→13 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types) reference.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.AnalyticsClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types.ArgoAnalyticsForZoneArgoAnalyticsForAZone
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Types can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→12 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiValueFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.RequestPart
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.Analytics.Http.OpenApiHttp, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→15 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types✕
- Type pairs
- 9 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigAiSearchFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigAiSearchPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigFilesFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigGetJobFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigListJobLogsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigListJobsFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigSearchFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigSearchPayloadFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.AutoRAGClient→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types.AutoragConfigSync
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Types can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→14 Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiValueFidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp.OpenApiHttp→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.RequestPart
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG.Http.OpenApiHttp, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→19 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context✕
- Type pairs
- 5 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.CounterDurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.RequestFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.CounterDurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.ResponseFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.RequestFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.NamespaceBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.RequestFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.NamespaceBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context.Response
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.Worker.Context can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→22 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects✕
- Type pairs
- 13 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.CounterDurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.CounterDurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectState`1Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.CounterDurableObject→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.WebSocketFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.DurableObjectBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectState`1Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.DurableObjectBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectStorageFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectGetOptionsFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectListOptionsFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectNamespaceFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectPutOptionsFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Helpers→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectState`1Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.NamespaceBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectIdFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.NamespaceBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectNamespaceFidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.NamespaceBuilder→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectStub
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→22 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects) reference.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage.Storage→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectStorage
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.Storage, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→22 Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket depends on Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket → type in Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects) references.
- Which types
Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket.WebSocket→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.DurableObjectState`1Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket.WebSocket→Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.WebSocket
- Direction
- Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket uses Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects. Changing Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects can break Fidelity.CloudEdge.DurableObjects.Helpers.WebSocket, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 14 | High / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 3 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 3 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, integrate SAST and secret scanning into the CI pipeline to block security regressions and resolve the three existing leaked secrets in the codebase. Second, establish a changelog to track release contents and configure the deployment process to use draft releases or approval gates, ensuring bad builds are stopped before reaching users. Finally, address the single project cohesion finding to maintain codebase integrity.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. | +9.8 pts | Low | Secret Scanning |
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +9.8 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +9.8 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| 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. | +7.9 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Resolve the 1 Split CloudEdge.R2.fable-temp finding(s) in Project Cohesion. | +3.1 pts | Low | Project Cohesion |
| Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`. | +1.5 pts | Medium | Nullable reference types |
| Grow the ADR log (currently 1) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made. | +1.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts. | +1.0 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 2.4 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-AI/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-AI/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-Magic/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-Magic/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-Access/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-Access/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-Email/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-Email/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-Stream/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-Stream/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs |
| generators/hawaii/Generated-Gateway/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Generated-Gateway/Client.fs |
| src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 54 of 60 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 60 dimensions across the health lenses
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 181 of 212 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.fs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.fs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D4 Code Duplication — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Code Duplication couldn't be assessed within its 13-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the test run produced no results for any test tier, so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. The cause could not be attributed, so it is excluded from the score rather than read as an absence of tests.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares npm dependencies as well as NuGet ones — manifests: package.json, samples/AskAI/Worker/package.json, samples/HelloWorker/package.json, samples/R2WebDAV/package.json, samples/SecureChat.UI/package.json, and others — and the counts on this row cover the NuGet side ONLY. This dimension reads dependency currency from `<PackageReference>` elements via `dotnet list package`; it does not read them, so the npm packages declared there were not checked for newer, deprecated or unmaintained releases. Their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's ecosystem coverage — not a finding that those dependencies are current.
- D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares package.json, but the licence verdict published here was taken over its NuGet package dependencies. Nothing was read about its npm dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (137885 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .fs, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (2 contributor(s) across 100 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 96% of the history; the other 1 hold 4% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (248,263 lines, 100% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
- D27 Navigability — evaluation did not complete — Navigability not included (check did not complete) — excluded from the score.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) (npm,nuget) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; REDACTED was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that REDACTED is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet build` exited 0, so the repository built; our search of the build output found no first-party assembly to read. That is a gap in how we locate build output, not a property of this repository.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; REDACTED was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that REDACTED is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- Production source was not modelled — run is Degraded — No code model read .fs, so the complexity, duplication and architecture dimensions were scored over a minority of this repository rather than its product, and dimensions that abstained did so for want of a model rather than for want of findings. The grade is NOT representative of this repository; diagnostics.md records the exact cause.
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
- 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.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes
164 god class(es) detected.
What to do
- Resolve the 84 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with OpenApiHttp.fs (84). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (84 warning-level).
- Resolve the 56 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with OpenApiHttp.fs (42), Client.fs (14). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (56 warning-level).
- Resolve the 24 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Client.fs (16), REDACTED (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D5 · Coupling
1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
D7 · Architectural Integrity
All 1 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 1 by analyzers, 0 by tests. Cycles found: 0.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
9 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages. NuGet only — this repository also declares npm dependencies, which are not read for currency here.
D13 · Secret Scanning
3 secret(s) detected.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 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.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 270 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 15 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 105 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's NuGet package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares package.json, and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 96 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (100% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
D19 · Documentation Quality
The Fidelity.CloudEdge documentation is comprehensive: the READMEs (00_architecture_decisions.md through 06_tool_status.md) cover a dual-layer architecture decision document, runtime vs management APIs overview, code-first deployment strategy, gap analysis with service maturity status, Firetower monitoring tool concept and its dual desktop/web deployment models, Pulumi .NET SDK selective-influence analysis, and the current state of Glutinum/Hawaii generation tools. The set is well-organized with a full outline for each document (Executive Summary, Current Implementation Status, ✅ Completed, The Two-Layer Architecture, Key Architectural Decisions, Decision 1: Three-Tier Package Architecture, etc.) and no clipped section. This is a top-tier actor-model documentation set with an overview document (08a_actor_model_overview.md) that explains the motivation and design of the F# MailboxProcessor intercept layer on Cloudflare Durable Objects. The core documents (08b_actor_core.md, 08c_mailbox_intercept.md, 08d_persistence_observability.md, 08e_management_infrastructure.md) cover every major aspect of the model: single-concurrency guarantees, WebSocket transport, BAREWire serialization, actor identity and location, persistence/observability layers, management infrastructure, and a pre-generation agents-overlay design document. The exploration journey (Phase 1 to Phase 5 with a Major CORRECTION!) is also present in the background/context section of 07_pages_direct_upload.md. All four READMEs are well-structured per their scope. The repository's documentation is strong and well-organized: the READMEs describe each directory (e.g. type-resolution rules, JSIR strategic assessment, Ask AI design) with clear purpose statements, installation/usage examples, and a full outline for every named section. The architecture/design docs are explicit and complete; the visible content covers overview, constraint, rule categories, round-trippable fidelity, and phased implementation of an AI-powered query system (Ask AI). (8 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 4 evaluation groups failed.)
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.8/10. — The Fidelity.CloudEdge documentation is comprehensive: the READMEs (00_architecture_decisions.md through 06_tool_status.md) cover a dual-layer architecture decision document, runtime vs management APIs overview, code-first deployment strategy, gap analysis with service maturity status, Firetower monitoring tool concept and its dual desktop/web deployment models, Pulumi .NET SDK selective-influence analysis, and the current state of Glutinum/Hawaii generation tools. The set is well-organized with a full outline for each document (Executive Summary, Current Implementation Status, ✅ Completed, The Two-Layer Architecture, Key Architectural Decisions, Decision 1: Three-Tier Package Architecture, etc.) and no clipped section. This is a top-tier actor-model documentation set with an overview document (08a_actor_model_overview.md) that explains the motivation and design of the F# MailboxProcessor intercept layer on Cloudflare Durable Objects. The core documents (08b_actor_core.md, 08c_mailbox_intercept.md, 08d_persistence_observability.md, 08e_management_infrastructure.md) cover every major aspect of the model: single-concurrency guarantees, WebSocket transport, BAREWire serialization, actor identity and location, persistence/observability layers, management infrastructure, and a pre-generation agents-overlay design document. The exploration journey (Phase 1 to Phase 5 with a Major CORRECTION!) is also present in the background/context section of 07_pages_direct_upload.md. All four READMEs are well-structured per their scope. The repository's documentation is strong and well-organized: the READMEs describe each directory (e.g. type-resolution rules, JSIR strategic assessment, Ask AI design) with clear purpose statements, installation/usage examples, and a full outline for every named section. The architecture/design docs are explicit and complete; the visible content covers overview, constraint, rule categories, round-trippable fidelity, and phased implementation of an AI-powered query system (Ask AI). (8 of 25 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 4 evaluation groups failed.)
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 1 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.0/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
What to do
- Improve ADR Quality — currently 8.0/10. — Evaluated 1 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.0/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 2 sampled symbols.
D25 · ADR Conformance
1 conform / 0 violate across 1 ADRs.
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Split CloudEdge.R2.fable-temp finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
14 finding(s): 0 critical, 13 high, 1 medium, 0 low. 10 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 1 file(s) — `generators/scripts/lib.sh` (line 162) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 10 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Partial dependency scan: 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm,nuget), and the findings above are real and complete for them. REDACTED was not scanned (REDACTED: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Scanner failed to run finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
trivy and checkov found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 200 of the 358 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. REDACTED was not scanned (REDACTED: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 104 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
AX5 · Architecture & structure
AX8 · Test isolation
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
What to do
- Grow the ADR log (currently 1) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.
P1 · CI/CD gates
P10 · Library API & versioning
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 7112 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
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.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
X4 · Structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 71% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 62% | Adequate — gated by D26, AX10 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 72% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Readiness | 49% | Adequate — gated by D13, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 76% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 56 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- 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.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the dev server did not expose a crawlable HTTP endpoint in time — no runtime evidence This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — .fs exposed no member bodies
- D10 Test Quality — ~2772 lines of test source are present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .fs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — .fs exposed no member bodies
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 248k LoC across a single project there is no scale to justify any boundaries. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D27 Navigability — Navigability not included (check did not complete)
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — no first-party assembly was located after a successful build
- D4 Code Duplication — Code Duplication not included (time budget)
- 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.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP/RB/RS/ERL/EX/EXS class graph only — this repository's production source is .fs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. 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.
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 10369 value object(s); 247 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — reported, not scored — this repository's C# declares no analysable method bodies (a constants, record or DTO assembly), and this score is a density of unfinished work per method, which has no denominator here. The file-level signals below were still collected and are shown in full
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 17 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
Serious — 173 finding(s)
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Analytics/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Builds/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Calls/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Containers/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.D1/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.DurableObjects/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventNotifications/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventSubscriptions/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Hyperdrive/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Images/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.KV/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.LoadBalancers/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Logs/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Mesh/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.MoQ/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyFunctions: OpenApiHttp src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Pages/OpenApiHttp.fs:145
- TooManyMethods: AIClient generators/hawaii/Generated-AI/Client.fs:10
- TooManyMethods: AIClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs:17
- TooManyMethods: MagicClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Magic/Client.fs:10
- TooManyMethods: MagicClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs:17
- TooManyMethods: AccessClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Access/Client.fs:10
- TooManyMethods: AccessClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs:17
- TooManyMethods: GatewayClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Gateway/Client.fs:10
- TooManyMethods: GatewayClient src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs:17
- TooManyMethods: StreamClient generators/hawaii/Generated-Stream/Client.fs:10
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Analytics/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AutoRAG/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.BrowserRendering/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Builds/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Calls/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Containers/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.D1/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.DurableObjects/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventNotifications/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.EventSubscriptions/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- TooManyMethods: RequestPart src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/OpenApiHttp.fs:34
- FileTooLong: Generated-AI/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AI/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AI/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Magic/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Magic/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Magic/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-AISearch/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AISearch/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AISearch/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-AIGateway/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AIGateway/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Access/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Access/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Access/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Email/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Email/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Email/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Stream/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Stream/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Stream/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Builds/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Builds/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Builds/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Builds/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-AIGateway/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.AIGateway/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Gateway/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Gateway/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Gateway/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-Workflows/Types.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-Workflows/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.Workflows/Types.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.Workflows/Types.fs
- FileTooLong: Generated-LoadBalancers/Client.fs generators/hawaii/Generated-LoadBalancers/Client.fs
- FileTooLong: CloudEdge.Management.LoadBalancers/Client.fs src/Management/CloudEdge.Management.LoadBalancers/Client.fs
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
- NuGet dependencies are not locked
- JavaScript dependencies are not locked
Minor — 13 finding(s)
- Split CloudEdge.R2.fable-temp
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- README/code drift
- No SAST
- No release approval gate
- No changelog
- Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere
Minor — 9 finding(s)
- Outdated: Fable.Core
- Outdated: FSharp.Core
- Outdated: Fable.Promise
- Outdated: FSharp.SystemTextJson
- Outdated: Expecto
- Outdated: Expecto.FsCheck
- Outdated: Fable.Remoting.Json
- Outdated: FsCheck
- Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-9e029513f69c46da8ec56688af063f4c/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 10 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-9e029513f69c46da8ec56688af063f4c/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 9 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 14 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list Fidelity.CloudEdge.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 1 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |