App to create playlists and download MP3/MP4
Public report — YoutubeLinks, published 19 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 19-06-2026 @ 22:29 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

FritzTheCat9/YoutubeLinks

34% Provisional

Small · 7,729 LoC · 7 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (18%)

Build did not compile — scores are provisional
The analysed solution did not compile (26 build error(s)). Dimensions that depend on the compiler — complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface — ran on incomplete models, so the scores below are provisional. Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade. First errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'FluentAssertions' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ILinkRepository' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'IEmailConfirmationService' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

75/78dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
80findings with an exact file:lineof 102 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
78/103dimensions across the health lenses7729 LoC · 7 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

FritzTheCat9/YoutubeLinks carries serious risk (34%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (85%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (18%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Code Health (45%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Strengthen data-at-rest protection (Data Protection); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler) (Keyboard semantics).

For scale: Small (~7,729 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (85%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 11%Plumbing 46%Tests 40%Generated 3%
New since the last scan (5+)

5 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-19) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Api YoutubeLinks.Api/YoutubeLinks.Api.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Blazor YoutubeLinks.Blazor/YoutubeLinks.Blazor.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Sdk YoutubeLinks.Sdk/YoutubeLinks.Sdk.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Shared YoutubeLinks.Shared/YoutubeLinks.Shared.csproj
  • D28 · Secret: generic-api-key YoutubeLinks.Api/bin/Debug/net10.0/appsettings.json

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,100–€21,000
Cost to rebuild€4,100–€21,000 (0.1 person-years (69–216 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 34% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 47% boilerplate · 33% straight-line · 20% branching logic
Dead frontend code~1965 LoC unreachable (95 file(s)) — that slice of this estimate buys code with zero runtime value; deleting it is the cheapest win in this report (the R7 card lists every file)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€12,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 18% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — service/app, CQRS × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
+3.8 pts · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
+3.3 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
+2.5 pts · Medium effort · Keyboard semantics

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move: fix the build · Critical · Leverage
The solution doesn't compile, so every Roslyn-derived dimension (complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface) ran on incomplete models and is PROVISIONAL. Fixing the build is the single change that makes the rest of the report trustworthy — do it first. The compiler reported: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'FluentAssertions' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ILinkRepository' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'IEmailConfirmationService' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'FluentAssertions' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ILinkRepository' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'IEmailConfirmationService' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 18%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (7,729 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 18%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

arch YoutubeLinks.Api Api YoutubeLinks.Shared Shared YoutubeLinks.Api->YoutubeLinks.Shared YoutubeLinks.Blazor Blazor YoutubeLinks.Sdk Sdk YoutubeLinks.Blazor->YoutubeLinks.Sdk YoutubeLinks.Sdk->YoutubeLinks.Shared

At a glance — Code Health · 45% · Poor · gated by D18, R7, X5

At a glance — Architecture · 85% · Healthy

At a glance — Maturity · 48% · Poor · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 18% · Critical · gated by R4, P1, P3, P5, P7

At a glance — Security · 47% · Poor · gated by D33, C1

At a glance — Accessibility · 51% · Fair · gated by AC4

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components31High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures4High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration4High / Critical

Roadmap

First, strengthen data protection by encrypting sensitive columns and securing keys, as partial coverage leaves critical gaps. Next, establish an architecture decision record to document significant design choices and their rationale. Then, ensure all interactive controls are fully keyboard-operable and anchors have valid hrefs. After that, implement security response headers to enforce defense in depth. Finally, enforce accessibility standards by integrating automated testing tools into the CI pipeline.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.+3.8 ptsMediumData Protection
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+3.3 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.+2.5 ptsMediumKeyboard semantics
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.+2.3 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+0.8 ptsLowADR Quality
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.+1.7 ptsMediumA11y enforcement
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+1.3 ptsMediumFolder & project structure
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.+1.3 ptsMediumPage structure

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 30 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 3% slop · 37% mixed · 60% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
youtube-links/package-lock.json0.0SlopJS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: [CVE redacted]
YoutubeLinks.Api/appsettings.json5.8MixedSecrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
YoutubeLinks.E2E/UsersPageTests.cs6.5MixedTest Quality: No assertions: SortByUserName
YoutubeLinks.Api/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0029
YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Repositories/PlaylistRepository.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
YoutubeLinks.E2E/HomePageTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: HamburgerMenu
YoutubeLinks.E2E/LinksPageTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: SortByTitle
YoutubeLinks.E2E/LoginDialogTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: ResendConfirmationEmail
YoutubeLinks.Api/bin/Debug/net10.0/appsettings.json7.2MixedSecrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
YoutubeLinks.Api/Extensions/PageListExtensions.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
YoutubeLinks.E2E/PlaylistsPageTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: SortByName
YoutubeLinks.Api/Features/Playlists/Extensions/PlaylistExtensions.cs8.0Near-cleanChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: PlaylistExtensions.cs ↔ PlaylistApiClient.cs
YoutubeLinks.Api/Auth/TokenService.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Auth/AuthStateProvider.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Exceptions/ExceptionHandler.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests/IntegrationTestWebAppFactory.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
YoutubeLinks.Api/Services/YoutubeService.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (27 lines × 2)
YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/UsersPage.razor.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: UsersPage (LCOM4 5)

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. 75 of 78 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 78 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D33D34D35D38AC1AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1C2ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8R1R10R11R2R3R4R6R7R8R9S1X1X2X3X4X5

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
  1. 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, 80 of 102 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.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee200-c485-7cd8-aaa8-daf92402e115.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) 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.
  • 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.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • 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.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
  • 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.
  • AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
  • AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials. Static readiness, not conformance.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — only literal inline colours and in-repo <style>-block CSS are read; external stylesheets, CSS-in-JS, computed/runtime/theme colour, and image contrast are all out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the markup itself shows.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
  • 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.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (7): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2)YoutubeLinks.Api/Services/YoutubeService.cs:73
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Repositories/PlaylistRepository.cs:89

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling8.9 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: YoutubeLinks.Shared

What to do

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

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.2 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 of 27 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5) · ×4YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:7

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with MainLayout.razor.cs, PlaylistsPage.razor.cs, User.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D9 · Test Distribution7.9 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 7.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

192 test methods: 119 unit, 42 integration, 0 BDD, 31 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

What to do

  1. Improve Test Distribution — currently 7.9/10. — 192 test methods: 119 unit, 42 integration, 0 BDD, 31 e2e.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D10 · Test Quality8.4 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 10 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 192 tests.

No assertions: HamburgerMenu · ×10YoutubeLinks.E2E/HomePageTests.cs:8
Mock framework: NSubstitute

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with UsersPageTests.cs (3), HomePageTests.cs (2), LinksPageTests.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
  2. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 3 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); e2e: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 45 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor7.5 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

34 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is YoutubeLinks.E2E/PageTestBase.cs, held by bartlomiejuminski1999@gmail.com.

Small-team knowledge concentration
Off-boarding risk: bartlomiejuminski1999@gmail.com

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Small-team knowledge concentration finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 7481 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8.

TodoComment · ×8YoutubeLinks.Api/Auth/TokenService.cs:52
CommentedOutCodeYoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests/IntegrationTestWebAppFactory.cs:59

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

7 projects, 281 .cs files, 12990 hand-written lines of code (7481 production / 5509 test), plus 377 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 12 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build failed
YoutubeLinks.Api (Production)YoutubeLinks.Api/YoutubeLinks.Api.csproj
YoutubeLinks.Blazor (Production)YoutubeLinks.Blazor/YoutubeLinks.Blazor.csproj
YoutubeLinks.E2E (Test)YoutubeLinks.E2E/YoutubeLinks.E2E.csproj
YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests (Test)YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests/YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests.csproj

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Poor◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Poor / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project has two README files, but one is a generic Vue 3 template readme that is irrelevant to the actual application. The primary README provides basic setup instructions and credentials but lacks critical information such as environment variables, configuration details, and contribution guidelines. Additionally, there are no architecture or design documents, and XML documentation coverage is 0%, indicating a complete lack of inline code documentation.

Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Api · ×4YoutubeLinks.Api/YoutubeLinks.Api.csproj
The README contains hardcoded, insecure default credentials (email and password) for admin and user accounts.README.md
This README is a generic Vue 3 template description, not specific to the 'YoutubeLinks' project.youtube-links/README.md
XML documentation coverage is 0% across all projects.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with YoutubeLinks.Api.csproj, YoutubeLinks.Blazor.csproj, YoutubeLinks.Sdk.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 The README contains hardcoded, insecure default credentials (email and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 This README is a generic Vue 3 template description, not specific to the… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Fair◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Fair / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 valuable / 16 redundant across 32 sampled comments; 4 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×3YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/Playlist.cs:30

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Playlist.cs (2), LinkExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 7 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

88 % of calls cross a namespace and 18 % go through an interface, but 99 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)7.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

Secret: generic-api-key · ×3YoutubeLinks.Api/appsettings.json:15detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with appsettings.json (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 2 low.

High IaC: DS-0029 · ×2YoutubeLinks.Api/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026 · ×2YoutubeLinks.Api/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether JavaScript/npm dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) — the npm ecosystem's biggest risk.

Method: JS/npm CVE scan via trivy fs --scanners vuln over JS manifests (package.json/yarn.lock/pnpm-lock/bun.lockb); 0-10 tight normalizer. NotApplicable without JS manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

31 finding(s): 1 critical, 15 high, 14 medium, 1 low.

High CVE: [CVE redacted] · ×15youtube-links/package-lock.jsondetected by trivy finding
Critical CVE: [CVE redacted]youtube-links/package-lock.jsondetected by trivy finding
Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] · ×14youtube-links/package-lock.jsondetected by trivy finding
Low CVE: [CVE redacted]youtube-links/package-lock.jsondetected by trivy finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 15 High CVE finding(s) in JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (15). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 14 Medium CVE finding(s) in JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (14). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness4.5 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 4.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 of 34 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is YoutubeLinks.Sdk/Clients/ApiClient.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase 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.

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: PlaylistExtensions.cs↔PlaylistApiClient.cs 50%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: PlaylistExtensions.cs ↔ PlaylistApiClient.csYoutubeLinks.Api/Features/Playlists/Extensions/PlaylistExtensions.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — npm and other lockfile ecosystems, parsed natively. Complements D33 (npm via trivy) and D30 (.NET via dotnet).

Method: npm/multi-ecosystem CVE scan via osv-scanner (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively: package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable without a JS lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable dependencies (OSV).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, and video has a captions track. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

AC3 · Page structure5.3 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language and title, expose a main landmark and a sane heading order, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

  • An iframe with no title is announced only as "frame". Add a title describing its content. — LinksPage.razor:248
  • No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — index.html:2, index.html:2
  • Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. — HelloWorld.vue:4

What to do

  • Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

  • A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. (×25) — FritzCopyToClipboardButton.razor:2, FritzProcessingButton.razor:1, MainLayout.razor:27, …

What to do

  • Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, and no aria-hidden on a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible, never computed or runtime colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse wired into tests or CI — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI, graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

  • No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.

What to do

  • Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

AX10 · Code composition5.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

AX7 · Slice cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

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.

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C1 · Data Protection1.0 / 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.

What to do

  • Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

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

ED5 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.9 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `StopAsync` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — DatabaseInitializer.cs:47
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — DatabaseExtensions.cs:24

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 7 of 7 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P2 · Observability5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 1/3 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

  • Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.

What to do

  • Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

R1 · Type Safety10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

R10 · Code Duplication5.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).

Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.

  • youtube-links/src/pages/Links/LinksPage.vue:26 · youtube-links/src/pages/Playlists/PlaylistsPage.vue:16 — LinksPage.vue:26
  • youtube-links/src/shared/exceptions/CustomException.ts:18 · youtube-links/src/shared/exceptions/CustomException.ts:34 — CustomException.ts:18
  • youtube-links/src/shared/features/links/commands/DownloadLink.ts:1 · youtube-links/src/shared/features/playlists/commands/ExportPlaylist.ts:1 · youtube-links/src/shared/features/users/commands/UpdateUserTheme.ts:1 — DownloadLink.ts:1
  • youtube-links/src/pages/Playlists/CreatePlaylistDialog.vue:19 · youtube-links/src/pages/Playlists/UpdatePlaylistDialog.vue:28 — CreatePlaylistDialog.vue:19
  • youtube-links/src/pages/Users/LoginDialog.vue:22 · youtube-links/src/pages/Users/RegisterDialog.vue:26 — LoginDialog.vue:22
  • youtube-links/src/clients/Playlists/CreatePlaylist.ts:23 · youtube-links/src/clients/Playlists/UpdatePlaylist.ts:23 · youtube-links/src/clients/Users/Login.ts:23 · youtube-links/src/clients/Users/Register.ts:23 — CreatePlaylist.ts:23
  • youtube-links/src/router/index.ts:39 · youtube-links/src/router/index.ts:79 — index.ts:39
  • youtube-links/src/shared/features/playlists/commands/ExportPlaylist.ts:1 · youtube-links/src/shared/features/users/commands/UpdateUserTheme.ts:1 — ExportPlaylist.ts:1

What to do

  • Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R11 · Import Boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Conformance to the detected frontend architecture layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules (D-386).

Method: Conformance to the detected frontend layout (feature-sliced / layered src) plus cross-package deep-import rules, over the module graph. Deterministic.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many components/modules exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

R4 · Test Coverage0.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

  • No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. (×8) — ApiClient.ts, LinksPage.vue, index.ts, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the package.json wires up test, lint and typecheck scripts.

Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

R7 · Dead Code0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

  • Unreachable from the 1 application, 4 tooling and 2 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (1 application, 4 tooling, 2 test roots considered) (×7) — ApiClient.ts, LinksPage.vue, TheWelcome.vue, …

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene6.5 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

  • Declared in youtube-links/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

S1 · Web-Security Posture4.5 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

X2 · Cancellation propagation5.4 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 31/133 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — CustomAuthorizationMiddlewareResultHandler.cs:9, PlaylistRepository.cs:152, PlaylistRepository.cs:161, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 0/4 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
  • ~0.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 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 `!`.

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 13 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria — partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

DimensionWCAG 2.2 A/AA criteriaCoverage
AC1 · Text alternatives1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics2.1.1, 2.4.3Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness4.1.2Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety1.4.3, 2.4.7Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcementenforcement — no page criterionEnforcement posture (process)

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.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health45%Poor — gated by D18, R7, X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture85%HealthyStrongest area.
Maturity48%Poor — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness18%Critical — gated by R4, P1, P3, P5, P7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security47%Poor — gated by D33, C1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility51%Fair — gated by AC4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 25 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.

  • AC2 Forms & labels — No form control/button found in the parsed markup — AC2 not applicable here.
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice + CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • 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.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (2 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot))
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 28 CQRS handler(s)
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • R5 Dependency Freshness — npm is not installed — dependency freshness not measured; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
  • X8 JS interop contract — no data

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.

Issue — 32 finding(s)
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×15
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • High CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — form-data: [CVE redacted]
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×10
  • No assertions: HamburgerMenu YoutubeLinks.E2E/HomePageTests.cs:8 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: SwitchTheme YoutubeLinks.E2E/HomePageTests.cs:16 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: SortByTitle YoutubeLinks.E2E/LinksPageTests.cs:34 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: SortByModified YoutubeLinks.E2E/LinksPageTests.cs:42 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: ResendConfirmationEmail YoutubeLinks.E2E/LoginDialogTests.cs:25 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: ForgotPassword YoutubeLinks.E2E/LoginDialogTests.cs:31 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: SortByName YoutubeLinks.E2E/PlaylistsPageTests.cs:18 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: SortByUserName YoutubeLinks.E2E/UsersPageTests.cs:22 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: SortByEmail YoutubeLinks.E2E/UsersPageTests.cs:31 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: NavigateToPlaylistsView YoutubeLinks.E2E/UsersPageTests.cs:40 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×3
  • Secret: generic-api-key YoutubeLinks.Api/appsettings.json:15 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
  • Secret: generic-api-key YoutubeLinks.Api/appsettings.json:14 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
  • Secret: generic-api-key YoutubeLinks.Api/bin/Debug/net10.0/appsettings.json:14 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×2
  • High IaC: DS-0029 YoutubeLinks.Api/Dockerfile — 'apt-get' missing '--no-install-recommends'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1
  • Critical CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — form-data: [CVE redacted]
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: PlaylistExtensions.cs ↔ PlaylistApiClient.cs YoutubeLinks.Api/Features/Playlists/Extensions/PlaylistExtensions.cs — `YoutubeLinks.Api/Features/Playlists/Extensions/PlaylistExtensions.cs` (context YoutubeLinks) and `YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Clients/PlaylistApiClient.cs` (context YoutubeLinks.Blazor) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (6 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
Warning — 36 finding(s)
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×14
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — follow-redirects: [GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — nanoid: [CVE redacted]
  • Medium CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — postcss: [CVE redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×8
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Api/Auth/TokenService.cs:52 — // TODO: custom exception — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:39 — // TODO: custom exceptions — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:53 — // TODO: custom exceptions — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Repositories/PlaylistRepository.cs:14 — // TODO: move pagination to repository — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Api/Extensions/PageListExtensions.cs:27 — // TODO: refactor this code — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Api/Extensions/PageListExtensions.cs:60 — // TODO: Move this validations to Query model — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Auth/AuthStateProvider.cs:47 — // TODO: log exception to file (ReadToken method exception) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Exceptions/ExceptionHandler.cs:37 — //TODO: log other HttpService exceptions to file on the server — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×4
  • Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Api YoutubeLinks.Api/YoutubeLinks.Api.csproj — YoutubeLinks.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (1/367).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Blazor YoutubeLinks.Blazor/YoutubeLinks.Blazor.csproj — YoutubeLinks.Blazor: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/259).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Sdk YoutubeLinks.Sdk/YoutubeLinks.Sdk.csproj — YoutubeLinks.Sdk: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/48).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: YoutubeLinks.Shared YoutubeLinks.Shared/YoutubeLinks.Shared.csproj — YoutubeLinks.Shared: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/300).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×4
  • Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5) YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:7 — User's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: UsersPage (LCOM4 5) YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/UsersPage.razor.cs:14 — UsersPage's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MainLayout (LCOM4 4) YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Layout/MainLayout.razor.cs:14 — MainLayout's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: PlaylistsPage (LCOM4 4) YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Playlists/PlaylistsPage.razor.cs:18 — PlaylistsPage's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1
  • CommentedOutCode YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests/IntegrationTestWebAppFactory.cs:59 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1
  • Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 26), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'FluentAssertions' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'ILinkRepository' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'IEmailConfirmationService' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) YoutubeLinks.Api/Services/YoutubeService.cs:73 — YoutubeLinks.Api/Services/YoutubeService.cs:73-99 | YoutubeLinks.Api/Services/YoutubeService.cs:127-153
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Repositories/PlaylistRepository.cs:89 — YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Repositories/PlaylistRepository.cs:89-98 | YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Repositories/PlaylistRepository.cs:124-133
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: YoutubeLinks.Shared — YoutubeLinks.Shared: abstractness 0.04, instability 0.00, distance 0.96 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 20 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×3
  • redundant comment YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/Playlist.cs:30 — "// validate data" — Remove or rename the variable/parameter to reflect validation, e.g., `ValidateInput()`. The comment adds no new information.
  • redundant comment YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/Playlist.cs:31 — "// check LinkUrlExists" — Remove. The method name or surrounding code should make the existence check obvious. If not, rename the method to `CheckLinkUrlExists`.
  • redundant comment YoutubeLinks.Api/Features/Links/Extensions/LinkExtensions.cs:55 — "// GetAllPaginatedLinks.Query" — Remove. This looks like a copy-paste artifact or a reference to a different method. If it's a TODO, make it explicit.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×2
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 YoutubeLinks.Api/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
D16 · Bus Factor · Small-team knowledge concentration · ×1
  • Small-team knowledge concentration — 34 file(s) are concentrated to one author — the ambient state with 2 active author(s), not 34 separate risks. The signal becomes meaningful as ownership spreads; no per-file action implied now.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: bartlomiejuminski1999@gmail.com — If bartlomiejuminski1999@gmail.com becomes unavailable, 34 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner — the largest single-person knowledge concentration (weighted toward the domain core). Pair, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The README contains hardcoded, insecure default credentials (email and password) for admin and user accounts. · ×1
  • The README contains hardcoded, insecure default credentials (email and password) for admin and user accounts. README.md — Remove all hardcoded credentials from the documentation. Provide instructions on how to generate or configure secure credentials instead.
D19 · Documentation Quality · This README is a generic Vue 3 template description, not specific to the 'YoutubeLinks' project. · ×1
  • This README is a generic Vue 3 template description, not specific to the 'YoutubeLinks' project. youtube-links/README.md — Replace this file with project-specific documentation or remove it if it is not intended for this repository.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML documentation coverage is 0% across all projects. · ×1
  • XML documentation coverage is 0% across all projects. — Add XML comment headers to public classes, methods, and properties to improve IntelliSense and API documentation.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — The codebase contains 7481 lines of code across 7 projects, indicating a multi-module structure where implicit boundaries should be explicitly defined to assess cross-boundary coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×1
  • Low CVE: [CVE redacted] youtube-links/package-lock.json — axios: [CVE redacted]
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 21 of 34 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 21 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 14 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — YoutubeLinks.UnitTests references NSubstitute.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 45 packages scanned; 3 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.Api (Production) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.Api (Production) YoutubeLinks.Api/YoutubeLinks.Api.csproj — 86 .cs files, 4626 LoC (3871 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.Blazor (Production) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.Blazor (Production) YoutubeLinks.Blazor/YoutubeLinks.Blazor.csproj — 55 .cs files, 3001 LoC (2587 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.E2E (Test) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.E2E (Test) YoutubeLinks.E2E/YoutubeLinks.E2E.csproj — 9 .cs files, 844 LoC (662 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests (Test) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests (Test) YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests/YoutubeLinks.IntegrationTests.csproj — 32 .cs files, 1797 LoC (1471 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.Sdk (Production) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.Sdk (Production) YoutubeLinks.Sdk/YoutubeLinks.Sdk.csproj — 6 .cs files, 420 LoC (346 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.Shared (Production) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.Shared (Production) YoutubeLinks.Shared/YoutubeLinks.Shared.csproj — 56 .cs files, 1229 LoC (1039 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · YoutubeLinks.UnitTests (Test) · ×1
  • YoutubeLinks.UnitTests (Test) YoutubeLinks.UnitTests/YoutubeLinks.UnitTests.csproj — 37 .cs files, 4145 LoC (3355 significant)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 119 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 42 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 31 end-to-end test method(s).

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.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .3artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list YoutubeLinks.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy config --format json --quiet .4artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** .31artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner --format json --recursive .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 019ee200-c485-7cd8-aaa8-daf92402e115 · 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 — 17 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 with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 17 field(s)
  • User.Email YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:12
  • User.EmailConfirmed YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:14
  • User.EmailConfirmationToken YoutubeLinks.Api/Data/Entities/User.cs:18
  • EmailOptions.Email YoutubeLinks.Api/Emails/EmailOptions.cs:5
  • EmailOptions.SendEmails YoutubeLinks.Api/Emails/EmailOptions.cs:9
  • ConfirmEmailPage.Email YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/ConfirmEmailPage.razor.cs:24
  • LoginDialogConst.EmailInput YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/LoginDialog.razor.cs:124
  • RegisterDialogConst.EmailInput YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/RegisterDialog.razor.cs:55
  • ResetPasswordPage.Email YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/ResetPasswordPage.razor.cs:23
  • UsersPageConst.EmailTableSortLabel YoutubeLinks.Blazor/Pages/Users/UsersPage.razor.cs:81
  • Command.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Commands/ConfirmEmail.cs:12
  • Command.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Commands/ForgotPassword.cs:12
  • Command.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Commands/Login.cs:13
  • Command.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Commands/Register.cs:13
  • Command.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Commands/ResendConfirmationEmail.cs:12
  • Command.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Commands/ResetPassword.cs:12
  • UserDto.Email YoutubeLinks.Shared/Features/Users/Responses/UserDto.cs:12

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.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md