Public report of FoxTes/DesktopClearArchitecture, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of
findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known
vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive reportMeasured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey →
Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 20:32 UTC · Survey ID cd_08c2aa6893b247649fb20f1655c07faf
FoxTes/DesktopClearArchitecture
Measured 21 October 2026, 20:31 UTC, at code version cd51b98
Code coverage is not measured: The repo's test suite did not build.
Test reliability is not measured: No test run produced results.
IL efficiency is not measured: The target did not build.
CAI scoreWeak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
Down 2 since the last survey
The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.
A small codebase: 3,125 lines of product code in 17 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.1 person-years · Weakest lens: Security and Compliance, 30
Findings by how serious they are
9 critical28 serious41 minor
7 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.
This survey was produced by
Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 20:31 UTC
A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number
together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee
the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that
implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.
The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸
67of 71 dimensions measured by tools. The other 4 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
59of 78 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 19 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
71dimensions across 6 lenses, read from 3,125 lines of product code in 17 projects.
FoxTes/DesktopClearArchitecture scores 43 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 88 and Performance at 84, both rated Strong, and Code Health at 66 and Production Readiness at 51, both rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Security and Compliance, which scores 30 and is rated Weak. Its Data Protection dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Security and Compliance can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault and to resolve the 7 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness, and if Security and Compliance rose to 70, the score would rise from 43 to about 53.
Nine findings are critical: seven in Static Analysis (SAST) and two in Knowledge Freshness.
Watchdog couldn't measure Dependency Hygiene, Platform End-of-Life and Runtime accessibility in this code, so those dimensions are left out of the score. The product code is 3,125 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €2,000, to rebuild.
A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.
How the score is built: what each lens counts forThe lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
This critical or serious finding was in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026, and is gone from this one.
Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €2,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild
€680 to €3,300, for 11 to 35 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem
Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor
×0.7 at a score of 43. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size
Small: 3,125 lines of product code, of which 54% is declarations and boilerplate, 31% straight logic and 15% logic with branches
Comment lines
The estimate prices 1,997 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 3,125 lines but aren't priced as work.
How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.
Top priorities
The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.
1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault.
Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Raises the score by about 11 points · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Resolve the 7 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ServiceCollectionExtension.cs, PagedList.cs, MainWindowViewModel.cs.
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Raises the score by about 4 points · Low effort · ADR Quality
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €2,000 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Security and Compliance, at 30 (Weak). Security and Compliance is about how well the product is protected, and how it handles personal data. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Security and Compliance also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Security and Compliance grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Security and Compliance actions in Top priorities.
If you do one thing first · First action
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 11 points for medium effort. The next survey will show the change in the score.
Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.
42 modules, with 23 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.
The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 2 more are left out to keep it readable.
Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.Models, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.Models can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.Models.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Client.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Models, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Models can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Models.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Extensions uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Extensions uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Extensions, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Extensions can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Extensions uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Dialogs.Authorization.ViewModels uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Dialogs.Authorization.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Dialogs.Authorization.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Dialogs.Authorization.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Dialogs.Authorization.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Home.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Home.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Home.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Home.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Settings.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Settings.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Settings.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Settings.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Configurations uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Configurations uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Configurations, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Configurations can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Configurations uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
5 pairs of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Common.Result.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Repositories uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Games.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Music.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Abstractions.Repositories.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.ViewModels.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities can break DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.Entities.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Products.ViewModels uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Benchs uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Benchs, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Benchs can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Services.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Benchs uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
1 pair of types, where a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Factories uses a type in DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts.
DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Factories uses DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts, so a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts can break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Factories, while a change to DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Factories can't break DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Contexts.
Position
Below the diagonal: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.Factories uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health · 66% · Adequate · gated by X5 ·
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2025 — Injection
11
High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures
5
Medium
Roadmap
First, secure sensitive data by implementing encryption at rest and managing keys in a vault, unless this is already handled by infrastructure. Next, address code hygiene by resolving seven orphaned files, starting with ServiceCollectionExtension.cs, PagedList.cs, and MainWindowViewModel.cs, and remove one redundant comment in SettingsControlViewModel.cs. Finally, establish architectural clarity by documenting significant design decisions in a dedicated folder and ensuring all decisions are formally recorded as Architecture Decision Records.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this
survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.
Critical — 9
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a
missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here
tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 28
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades
the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to
carry for two years either.
Minor — 41
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions.
Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 7
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. 67 of 71 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 71 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 59 of 78 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.
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 — 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 list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: /usr/share/dotnet/sdk/10.0.400/NuGet.targets(198,5): error MSB4181: The "RestoreTask" task returned false but did not log an error. [DesktopClearArhitecture.sln].
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-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 55 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so 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 C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.csproj' with message: The "ResolvePackageAssets" task was not given a value for the required parameter "TargetFramework".
D18 Solution Shape — 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 build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
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.
D28 Secrets (history) — 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. D28's config-credential rule (WD-SECRET-0002) parses each committed `.json` config as a document and reads credential-named values; `src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/appsettings.json`, `src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/appsettings.Stage.json`, `src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/appsettings.Production.json`, `src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/appsettings.Development.json` did not parse (JSON5, a template, several concatenated documents), so a credential bound there is UNMEASURED by that rule. gitleaks still scanned the same files as text.
D39 IL Efficiency — 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. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
D44 Platform End-of-Life — 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 dimension reads a project's own statement about the platform it runs on: a TargetFramework in a .NET project file, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain file or Cargo.toml rust-version, a .go-version, .java-version, .ruby-version, .tool-versions or .sdkmanrc, a go.mod go directive, a Maven or Gradle Java level or toolchain, a Gemfile's ruby directive, a mix.exs elixir requirement, a rebar.config minimum_otp_vsn, a pubspec.yaml SDK constraint, a build.sbt scalaVersion, or a framework major pinned by a dependency constraint. This repository carries none of them, so nothing about its platform was established. That is a gap in this analyzer's coverage, NOT a finding that the platform is supported — a language whose runtime is declared elsewhere (Package.swift, a Dockerfile) is simply not read here yet.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (docker-compose.yml). compose up failed (exit 15 — the compose project is invalid) — yaml: line 2: did not find expected key; runtime evidence skipped.
Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain.csproj, src/Application/DesktopClearArchitecture.Application/DesktopClearArchitecture.Application.csproj, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.csproj, tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests.csproj, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence.csproj and 12 more, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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").
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.
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
LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Repository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IRepository.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with IRepository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
5 test methods: 5 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
0 of 281 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 45 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 205 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.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
0 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 3125 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
17 projects, 58 source files, 3235 hand-written lines of code (3125 production / 110 test — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 29 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
Thin analysable surface across projects: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Teststests/DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests.csproj
What to do
Resolve the 2 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests.csproj, DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Identity.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The repository's root README is a well-written template document that states what the project is (a WPF Clear Architecture desktop application template) and its main selling points (clean application architecture, easy navigation via NavigationView/Prism modules, simple filtering/commands with ReactiveProperty, IServiceCollection extension support), lists the tech stack, outlines future work ('Add MediatoR', 'architectural tests'), and provides a clear contributing process. It also includes a special thanks section and a MIT license. The document is clipped mid-support paragraph but its outline (About The Project, Solving common problems, Tech Stack, Down the Roadmap, Contributing, Special thanks to, License, Contact) shows all sections exist; it does not yet demonstrate one or more of the per-document quality criteria that would push it toward a lower band. It is clear and complete for its role as an overview document.
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README is a well-written template document that states what the project is (a WPF Clear Architecture desktop application template) and its main selling points (clean application architecture, easy navigation via NavigationView/Prism modules, simple filtering/commands with ReactiveProperty, IServiceCollection extension support), lists the tech stack, outlines future work ('Add MediatoR', 'architectural tests'), and provides a clear contributing process. It also includes a special thanks section and a MIT license. The document is clipped mid-support paragraph but its outline (About The Project, Solving common problems, Tech Stack, Down the Roadmap, Contributing, Special thanks to, License, Contact) shows all sections exist; it does not yet demonstrate one or more of the per-document quality criteria that would push it toward a lower band. It is clear and complete for its role as an overview document.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
2 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Inconsistent naming for the same domain concept (Song data transfer). The codebase uses both 'Dto' (Data Transfer Object) and 'Profile' (likely referring to a Mapster profile or mapping configuration, but named as a type holding data) for Song-related data structures. 'SongProfile' is ambiguous as it could be a mapping profile or a data object, whereas 'SongDto' is explicit. If SongProfile is a data object, it should be SongDto. If it is a mapping profile, it should not be grouped with data symbols or named to imply data.
Inconsistent spelling of 'Converter'. The class is named 'Convertor' (with an 'o'), while the test class is named 'ConvertorsTests' (with an 's' and 'o', implying the plural of 'Convertor', but the standard spelling is 'Converter'). More critically, the test name 'FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest' uses 'Convert' as a noun/verb mix, whereas the class uses 'Convertor'. The primary inconsistency is the spelling 'Convertor' vs the standard 'Converter' (or at least consistency within the codebase). If 'Convertor' is the chosen variant, the test class should likely be 'ConvertorTests' and the test method should describe the action, not use 'Convert' as a noun. However, the most glaring issue is the potential confusion between 'Convertor' (class) and 'Convert' (method) in the test name, and the non-standard spelling 'Convertor' if 'Converter' is the expected norm. Given the instruction to respect variant consistency, if 'Convertor' is the chosen variant, it is consistent within the class, but the test name 'FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest' is grammatically poor compared to 'ConvertsFahrenheitToCelsius'.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for the same domain concept (Song data transfer).… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent spelling of 'Converter'. The class is named 'Convertor'… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment ValueCritical◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with SettingsControlViewModel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
11 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 4 medium, 0 low. 5 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) — `docker-compose.yml` — so no absence of findings in them is evidence of anything, and nothing in them was analysed. 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 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 5 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 (5 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
9 of 9 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs. Counted over 9 of the 54 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Resolve the 7 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ServiceCollectionExtension.cs, PagedList.cs, MainWindowViewModel.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 2 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with IRepository.cs, Repository.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
Resolve the 1 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 — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.
Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.
`IRepository<TEntity>` declares 50 members: `GetPagedList`, `GetPagedListAsync`, `GetPagedList`, `GetPagedListAsync`, `GetFirstOrDefault`, `GetFirstOrDefault`, `GetFirstOrDefaultAsync`, `GetFirstOrDefaultAsync`, `Find`, `FindAsync`, `FindAsync`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAllAsync`, `GetAllAsync`, `GetAllAsync`, `GetAllAsync`, `Insert`, `Insert`, `Insert`, `InsertAsync`, `InsertAsync`, `InsertAsync`, `Update`, `Update`, `Update`, `Delete`, `Delete`, `Delete`, `Delete`, `Count`, `CountAsync`, `LongCount`, `LongCountAsync`, `Exists`, `ExistsAsync`, `Max`, and 10 more. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. Those 50 declarations carry 29 distinct name(s), so part of the width is overloading rather than separate responsibilities — but 29 operations clears the >15 bar on its own, so the row is about responsibilities, not signatures. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:14
What to do
Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 17 of 17 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.
Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
For more than a log file, an `ActivitySource`/`EventSource` the user can switch on gives you a structured trace to attach to a bug report. A health-check endpoint does not apply here: nothing orchestrates or load-balances a binary the user launches.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 3931 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.
Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().
Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
What to do
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 7 use(s) across 3,125 production line(s) (~2.2/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 4/13 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×9) — src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure/Services/GameSearcher.cs:30, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure/Services/GameSearcher.cs:33, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:138, …
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.
Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.
Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.
Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.
Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.
Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.
Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged
Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.
Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
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.
~0.4 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 2 suppression(s) across the 5067 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 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
These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.
C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 44 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
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 — compose up failed (exit 15 — the compose project is invalid) — yaml: line 2: did not find expected key; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — no test run produced results
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (3,125 production LoC in the .NET projects) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. 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"]`.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
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 — the target did not build
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
D44 Platform End-of-Life — Platform end-of-life not assessed — this repository declares no platform this pass reads
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
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
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
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
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X4 Structured logging — This check asks whether log calls keep a message's values apart from its text, which needs a logger that can carry them as fields. This repository's C# was read, and every log call in it goes through a logger that takes one finished message — its own wrapper, log4net, Console or Debug — so an interpolated message there loses nothing the API could have kept. Calls through Microsoft.Extensions.Logging, Serilog, NLog or ZLogger, or any logger with a message-template overload, would be judged.
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)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
Orphaned knowledge src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:1— No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Orphaned knowledge src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:1— No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Serious — 28 finding(s)
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Async method without CancellationToken · ×9
Async method without CancellationToken: GetGames src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure/Services/GameSearcher.cs:30— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetGamesList src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure/Services/GameSearcher.cs:33— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetAllAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:138— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetAllAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:146— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetAllAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:156— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetAllAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:184— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetFirstOrDefaultAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:365— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: GetFirstOrDefaultAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs:420— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Async method without CancellationToken: SaveChangesAsync src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/UnitOfWork.cs:114— No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:36— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:36-41 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:66-71 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:96-101 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:129-134 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:180— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:180-185 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:205-210 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:342-347 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:409-414 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:180` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
C1 · Data Protection· No data-protection/encryption · ×1
No data-protection/encryption — No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
TooManyMethods: Repository src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/Repository.cs— TooManyMethods — 410 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 52 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 22 over it, 1.73× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 4) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:181— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:181-204 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:206-228 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:343-356 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:386-408 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:181` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:356` calls `GetAllAsync` and `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:408` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:229— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:229-241 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:410-420 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:229` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:66— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:66-72 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:129-135 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:36— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:36-41 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:96-101 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:156— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:156-160 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:229-233 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:319-323 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:386-390 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:156` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 8) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:156— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:156-160 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:181-185 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:206-210 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:229-233 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:319-323 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:343-347 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:386-390 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:410-414 — all 8 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:156` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:318` calls `GetAll` and `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:342` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 6) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:94— src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:94-98 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:127-131 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:179-183 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:204-208 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:341-345 | src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:408-412 — all 6 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:94` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene· NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
Orphaned file src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtension.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Common/Result/PagedList.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/App.xaml.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/UnitOfWork.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IUnitOfWork.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Extensions/PagedListExtension.cs:1— No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Shell project: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests.csproj— `DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrasctucture.Identity.Tests` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Identity src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Identity/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Identity.csproj— `DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Identity` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Fat interface: IRepository<TEntity> (50 members) src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IRepository.cs:14— `IRepository<TEntity>` declares 50 members: `GetPagedList`, `GetPagedListAsync`, `GetPagedList`, `GetPagedListAsync`, `GetFirstOrDefault`, `GetFirstOrDefault`, `GetFirstOrDefaultAsync`, `GetFirstOrDefaultAsync`, `Find`, `FindAsync`, `FindAsync`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAll`, `GetAllAsync`, `GetAllAsync`, `GetAllAsync`, `GetAllAsync`, `Insert`, `Insert`, `Insert`, `InsertAsync`, `InsertAsync`, `InsertAsync`, `Update`, `Update`, `Update`, `Delete`, `Delete`, `Delete`, `Delete`, `Count`, `CountAsync`, `LongCount`, `LongCountAsync`, `Exists`, `ExistsAsync`, `Max`, and 10 more. Counted as the author wrote them — a property is ONE member and its get/set accessors are not counted separately, and an event counts once. Those 50 declarations carry 29 distinct name(s), so part of the width is overloading rather than separate responsibilities — but 29 operations clears the >15 bar on its own, so the row is about responsibilities, not signatures. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces.
Thin analysable surface across projects: DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests/DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests.csproj— 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code; `DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests` has 27 significant line(s). The mean analysable-surface weight is 85 %; this project lowers Solution Shape by about 0.27 point(s). Consolidate it or grow it into a substantial, well-scoped assembly.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent naming for the same domain concept (Song data transfer). The codebase uses both 'Dto' (Data Transfer Object) and 'Profile' (likely referring to a Mapster profile or mapping configuration, but named as a type holding data) for Song-related data structures. 'SongProfile' is ambiguous as it could be a mapping profile or a data object, whereas 'SongDto' is explicit. If SongProfile is a data object, it should be SongDto. If it is a mapping profile, it should not be grouped with data symbols or named to imply data. · ×1
Inconsistent naming for the same domain concept (Song data transfer). The codebase uses both 'Dto' (Data Transfer Object) and 'Profile' (likely referring to a Mapster profile or mapping configuration, but named as a type holding data) for Song-related data structures. 'SongProfile' is ambiguous as it could be a mapping profile or a data object, whereas 'SongDto' is explicit. If SongProfile is a data object, it should be SongDto. If it is a mapping profile, it should not be grouped with data symbols or named to imply data. — Standardize on 'Dto' for data transfer objects (e.g., rename SongProfile to SongDto if it holds data, or rename SongDto to SongProfile if it is strictly a mapping configuration, though the latter is less common for the type itself). Ensure the name reflects the role: Data vs. Configuration. (symbols: DesktopClearArchitecture.Application.Profiles.SongProfile, DesktopClearArchitecture.Application.Dtos.SongDto)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent spelling of 'Converter'. The class is named 'Convertor' (with an 'o'), while the test class is named 'ConvertorsTests' (with an 's' and 'o', implying the plural of 'Convertor', but the standard spelling is 'Converter'). More critically, the test name 'FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest' uses 'Convert' as a noun/verb mix, whereas the class uses 'Convertor'. The primary inconsistency is the spelling 'Convertor' vs the standard 'Converter' (or at least consistency within the codebase). If 'Convertor' is the chosen variant, the test class should likely be 'ConvertorTests' and the test method should describe the action, not use 'Convert' as a noun. However, the most glaring issue is the potential confusion between 'Convertor' (class) and 'Convert' (method) in the test name, and the non-standard spelling 'Convertor' if 'Converter' is the expected norm. Given the instruction to respect variant consistency, if 'Convertor' is the chosen variant, it is consistent within the class, but the test name 'FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest' is grammatically poor compared to 'ConvertsFahrenheitToCelsius'. · ×1
Inconsistent spelling of 'Converter'. The class is named 'Convertor' (with an 'o'), while the test class is named 'ConvertorsTests' (with an 's' and 'o', implying the plural of 'Convertor', but the standard spelling is 'Converter'). More critically, the test name 'FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest' uses 'Convert' as a noun/verb mix, whereas the class uses 'Convertor'. The primary inconsistency is the spelling 'Convertor' vs the standard 'Converter' (or at least consistency within the codebase). If 'Convertor' is the chosen variant, the test class should likely be 'ConvertorTests' and the test method should describe the action, not use 'Convert' as a noun. However, the most glaring issue is the potential confusion between 'Convertor' (class) and 'Convert' (method) in the test name, and the non-standard spelling 'Convertor' if 'Converter' is the expected norm. Given the instruction to respect variant consistency, if 'Convertor' is the chosen variant, it is consistent within the class, but the test name 'FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest' is grammatically poor compared to 'ConvertsFahrenheitToCelsius'. — Standardize on 'Converter' (standard English spelling) or 'Convertor' (if a specific variant is chosen). If 'Convertor' is chosen, rename the class to 'CelsiusToFahrenheitConverter' (standard) or ensure all related symbols use 'Convertor'. Rename the test method to a verb phrase like 'ConvertsFahrenheitToCelsius'. (symbols: DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.Convertors.CelsiusToFahrenheitConvertor, DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.Convertors.CelsiusToFahrenheitConvertor.Convert, DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Shared.Tests.ConvertorsTests.FahrenheitToCelsiusConvertTest)
redundant comment src/UI/Modules/DesktopClearArchitecture.UI.Modules.Settings/ViewModels/SettingsControlViewModel.cs:11— "Temporarily." — delete - restates the trailing-slash closing brace and adds no explanation
D34 · Knowledge Freshness· Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
Further orphaned files (smaller) — 7 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Common/Result/PagedList.cs, src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs, src/Domain/DesktopClearArchitecture.Domain/Abstractions/Repositories/IUnitOfWork.cs, src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Client/App.xaml.cs, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Extensions/ServiceCollectionExtension.cs, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Repositories/UnitOfWork.cs, src/Infrastructure/DesktopClearArchitecture.Infrastructure.Persistence/Extensions/PagedListExtension.cs (9 orphaned of 9 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 9 of the 54 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
M2 · Architecture documentation· No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack, or a .NET security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 3931 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback· No rollback/health safety · ×1
No rollback/health safety — Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
X2 · Cancellation propagation· Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 4/13 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 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.
Null-forgiving operator (`!`) suppressions reduce the NRT score — ~0.4 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 2 suppression(s) across the 5067 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
Off the main sequence: DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared src/UI/DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared/DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared.csproj:1— DesktopClearArchitecture.Shared: abstractness 0.20, instability 0.00, distance 0.80 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.
nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
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.
disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
0
—
Run 01a16029-0d09-7900-a86b-42a45d64974f · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 1 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by NAME, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.
Issues: 9 · Warnings: 28 · Recommendations: 27 · Info: 14 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 20:31 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.