HiP-DataStore — Watchdog Audit

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.

HiP-App/HiP-DataStore carries serious risk (46%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (33%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (46%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience); readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green)… (Deployment & Rollback).

For scale: Small (~7,282 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 65% Adequate Architecture 72% Strong Maturity 46% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 33% Weak · gated by P1, P3, P7 Security 76% Strong

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Readiness 33% · 47% weightMaturity 46% · 26% weightCode Health 65% · 14% weightArchitecture 72% · 8% weightSecurity 76% · 4% weight

Raise Readiness 33 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 46 → ~58.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 38%Plumbing 56%Tests 6%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,900–€25,000

Cost to rebuild	€4,900–€25,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (82–264 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 46% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 45% boilerplate · 14% straight-line · 40% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€15,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 33% — 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, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

+13.7 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

+13.7 pts · Medium effort · Outbound HTTP resilience

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

+6.5 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

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 33%. 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 (7,282 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 33%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory

The headline is improving steadily (+2.6 pts/run over 10 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.

Evidence: trajectory: +2.6 pts/run over 10 runs

Trajectory

The Ugly

S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 4.5

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 category	Findings	Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	2	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a continuous integration pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, implement HTTP client resilience to prevent external dependencies from causing outages. Then, add health checks and automated rollback strategies to ensure safe deployments. Finally, improve observability with distributed tracing and maintain a detailed changelog for each release.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+13.7 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+13.7 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+6.5 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.	+13.0 pts	Medium	Deployment & Rollback
Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.	+10.7 pts	Medium	Observability
Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.	+8.1 pts	Medium	Release Hygiene
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.	+7.4 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+6.8 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 24 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 54% mixed · 46% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs	4.9	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs
HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj	5.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
HiP-DataStore.Sdk/HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj	5.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
HiP-DataStore.Model/HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj	5.5	Mixed	Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Dockerfile	6.5	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs	6.5	Mixed	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: TagResult.cs ↔ MediaController.cs
HiP-DataStore/Core/HistoryUtil.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ReferenceEvents.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs	7.4	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cyclomatic 17)
HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageCreated.cs	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageUpdated.cs	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration11DefaultValues.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cyclomatic 16)
HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (10 lines × 5)
HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitPageResult.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: ExhibitPageResult.cs ↔ CacheDatabaseManager.cs
HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/RouteResult.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: RouteResult.cs ↔ ExhibitsController.cs
HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitResult.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: ExhibitResult.cs ↔ CacheDatabaseManager.cs
HiP-DataStore.Model/Entity/ScoreRecord.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: ScoreRecord.cs ↔ Startup.cs
HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ScoreAdded.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: ScoreAdded.cs ↔ Startup.cs
HiP-DataStore.Model/Entity/Route.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageDeleted.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers

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. 50 of 52 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 52 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D26D28D29D30D31D33D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6P7P8S1X1X2X3X4

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 52 of 62 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f1583-dfd6-7dfb-a571-287c1f2c076a.

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.

D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
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.
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.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and 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.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CacheDatabaseManager.ApplyEvent at 34.

CacheDatabaseManager.ApplyEvent (cyclomatic 34)HiP-DataStore/Core/ReadModel/CacheDatabaseManager.cs:36

ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cyclomatic 17)HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:451

Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cyclomatic 16)HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration11DefaultValues.cs:16

What to do

Resolve the 1 CacheDatabaseManager.ApplyEvent (cyclomatic 34) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CacheDatabaseManager.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cyclomatic 17) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ExhibitPagesController.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cyclomatic 16) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Migration11DefaultValues.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.7 / 10Strong✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync at 34.

Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cognitive 34)HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration11DefaultValues.cs:16

ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cognitive 18)HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:451

HistoryUtil.GetSummaryAsync (cognitive 17)HiP-DataStore/Core/HistoryUtil.cs:37

HighScoreIndex.ApplyEvent (cognitive 17)HiP-DataStore/Core/WriteModel/HighScoreIndex.cs:41

ReviewIndex.ApplyEvent (cognitive 17)HiP-DataStore/Core/WriteModel/ReviewIndex.cs:67

What to do

Resolve the 1 Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cognitive 34) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Migration11DefaultValues.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cognitive 18) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ExhibitPagesController.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 HistoryUtil.GetSummaryAsync (cognitive 17) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with HistoryUtil.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.5 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 god class(es) detected.

FileTooLong: Controllers/ExhibitsController.csHiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:0

ClassTooLong: ExhibitsControllerHiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

5 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:332

Duplicated block (10 lines × 5)HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:31

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3)HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:311

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:691

Duplicated block (6 lines × 5)HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:87

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.4 / 10Strong✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: HiP-DataStore.Model

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 23 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 test methods: 2 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 2 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 23 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt6.7 / 10Adequate✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

22 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 7282 LoC (1.6/KLoC) → score 6.7.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×12HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj:6

ObsoleteWithCallers · ×5HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageCreated.cs:18

TodoComment · ×3HiP-DataStore.Model/Entity/Route.cs:8

ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×2HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageCreated.cs:34

What to do

Resolve the 12 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj (4), HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj (4), HiP-DataStore.csproj (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 ObsoleteWithCallers finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ReferenceEvents.cs (2), ExhibitPageCreated.cs, ExhibitPageDeleted.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 3 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with HistoryController.cs, HistoryUtil.cs, Route.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 projects, 131 .cs files, 7763 hand-written lines of code (7282 production / 481 test), 4 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Build status unknown

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The HiP-DataStore README is clear and complete for a local-development setup guide, covering Event Store and MongoDB on Windows with download/run commands plus an appsettings.json reference. The WriteModel README dives deeply into validation design decisions (superficial vs domain-level checks) and four concrete alternatives for the exhibit-image existence requirement, ending with 'THIS IS THE SOL'. Both docs are well-structured and the outline is visible past the clip marker; the XML-doc coverage reflects a focused project rather than an overall documentation gap.

XML-doc coverage: HiP-DataStore · ×3HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The HiP-DataStore README is clear and complete for a local-development setup guide, covering Event Store and MongoDB on Windows with download/run commands plus an appsettings.json reference. The WriteModel README dives deeply into validation design decisions (superficial vs domain-level checks) and four concrete alternatives for the exhibit-image existence requirement, ending with 'THIS IS THE SOL'. Both docs are well-structured and the outline is visible past the clip marker; the XML-doc coverage reflects a focused project rather than an overall documentation gap.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.6 / 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 1 low.

High IaC: DS-0002Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling7.7 / 10Strong✓ 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: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: ExhibitsController.cs↔RoutesController.cs 75%; ExhibitsController.cs↔TagsController.cs 69%; ExhibitResult.cs↔RouteResult.cs 68%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ExhibitPageResult.cs ↔ CacheDatabaseManager.cs · ×8HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitPageResult.cs

Change coupling: ExhibitsController.cs ↔ RoutesController.cs · ×2HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs

What to do

Resolve the 8 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with TagResult.cs (3), ExhibitPageResult.cs, ExhibitResult.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
Resolve the 2 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with ExhibitsController.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition5.2 / 10Adequate✓ 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).

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons4.2 / 10Weak✓ 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.

`RatingIndex` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_rateDictionary; e.g. `_rateDictionary` at line 70). — RatingIndex.cs:11
`ExhibitPageIndex` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_pageType; e.g. `_pageType` at line 23). — ExhibitPageIndex.cs:8
`ReferencesIndex` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_lastModificationCascading, _referencesOf, _referencesPerProperty, _referencesTo; e.g. `_lastModificationCascading` at line 119). — ReferencesIndex.cs:13
`EntityIndex` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_types; e.g. `_types` at line 134). — EntityIndex.cs:17

What to do

Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — HistoryUtil.cs:126

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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.

`GetVersionAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — HistoryUtil.cs:122
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — HistoryController.cs:118, HistoryController.cs:121, HistoryController.cs:122

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy7.0 / 10Strong◐ 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.

README omits the TypeScript client project (HiP-DataStore.TypeScript)
README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the TypeScript client project (HiP-DataStore.TypeScript); README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

A changelog exists but has few versioned entries — keep it current with each release.

What to do

Keep the changelog current — add a versioned entry (Keep-a-Changelog ## [x.y.z]) for each release so the history isn't a stub.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture4.5 / 10Weak✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 0/54 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) — ExhibitPagesController.cs:185, ExhibitPagesController.cs:211, ExhibitPagesController.cs:251, …

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. — DataStoreService.cs:27

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	65%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Architecture	72%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	46%	Weak — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	33%	Weak — gated by P1, P3, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	76%	Strong	Strongest area.

Not included — 42 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget)
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 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 — 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.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (an event-store package (Marten/EventStore))
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — 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.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
X7 Silent fallback defaults — 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 — 21 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×12

NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj:6 — 1701
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Sdk/HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj:6 — 1701
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Model/HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj:6 — 1701
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj:6 — 1702
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Sdk/HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj:6 — 1702
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Model/HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj:6 — 1702
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj:6 — 1705
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Sdk/HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj:6 — 1705
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Model/HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj:6 — 1705
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj:6 — 1591
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Sdk/HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj:6 — 1591
NoWarnInCsproj HiP-DataStore.Model/HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj:6 — 1591

D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×8

Boundary-crossing change coupling: ExhibitPageResult.cs ↔ CacheDatabaseManager.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitPageResult.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitPageResult.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Core/ReadModel/CacheDatabaseManager.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 60% of the time (21 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: TagResult.cs ↔ MediaController.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/MediaController.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 55% of the time (11 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: RouteResult.cs ↔ ExhibitsController.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/RouteResult.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/RouteResult.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 53% of the time (10 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: ExhibitResult.cs ↔ CacheDatabaseManager.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitResult.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/ExhibitResult.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Core/ReadModel/CacheDatabaseManager.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (19 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: TagResult.cs ↔ CacheDatabaseManager.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Core/ReadModel/CacheDatabaseManager.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (10 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: TagResult.cs ↔ ExhibitsController.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Rest/TagResult.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (10 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: ScoreRecord.cs ↔ Startup.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Entity/ScoreRecord.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Entity/ScoreRecord.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Startup.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (7 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.
Boundary-crossing change coupling: ScoreAdded.cs ↔ Startup.cs HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ScoreAdded.cs — `HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ScoreAdded.cs` (context HiP-DataStore.Model) and `HiP-DataStore/Startup.cs` (context HiP-DataStore) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 50% of the time (5 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.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1

High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'

Warning — 28 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×5

ObsoleteWithCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageCreated.cs:18 — [Obsolete] ExhibitPageCreated2
ObsoleteWithCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageDeleted.cs:12 — [Obsolete] ExhibitPageDeleted
ObsoleteWithCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageUpdated.cs:18 — [Obsolete] ExhibitPageUpdated2
ObsoleteWithCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ReferenceEvents.cs:45 — [Obsolete] ReferenceAdded
ObsoleteWithCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ReferenceEvents.cs:61 — [Obsolete] ReferenceRemoved

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×3

TodoComment HiP-DataStore.Model/Entity/Route.cs:8 — // TODO: What about waypoints? — 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 HiP-DataStore/Controllers/HistoryController.cs:120 — // // TODO: Validate user permissions — 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 HiP-DataStore/Core/HistoryUtil.cs:125 — // TODO — 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.

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2

Change coupling: ExhibitsController.cs ↔ RoutesController.cs HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs — `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs` and `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/RoutesController.cs` change together 75% of the time (81 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: ExhibitsController.cs ↔ TagsController.cs HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs — `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs` and `HiP-DataStore/Controllers/TagsController.cs` change together 69% of the time (47 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CacheDatabaseManager.ApplyEvent (cyclomatic 34) · ×1

CacheDatabaseManager.ApplyEvent (cyclomatic 34) HiP-DataStore/Core/ReadModel/CacheDatabaseManager.cs:36 — CacheDatabaseManager.ApplyEvent has cyclomatic complexity 34 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cyclomatic 17) HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:451 — ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cyclomatic 16) · ×1

Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cyclomatic 16) HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration11DefaultValues.cs:16 — Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cognitive 34) · ×1

Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync (cognitive 34) HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration11DefaultValues.cs:16 — Migration11DefaultValues.MigrateAsync has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cognitive 18) · ×1

ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs (cognitive 18) HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:451 — ExhibitPagesController.ValidateExhibitPageArgs has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HistoryUtil.GetSummaryAsync (cognitive 17) · ×1

HistoryUtil.GetSummaryAsync (cognitive 17) HiP-DataStore/Core/HistoryUtil.cs:37 — HistoryUtil.GetSummaryAsync has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · HighScoreIndex.ApplyEvent (cognitive 17) · ×1

HighScoreIndex.ApplyEvent (cognitive 17) HiP-DataStore/Core/WriteModel/HighScoreIndex.cs:41 — HighScoreIndex.ApplyEvent has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ReviewIndex.ApplyEvent (cognitive 17) · ×1

ReviewIndex.ApplyEvent (cognitive 17) HiP-DataStore/Core/WriteModel/ReviewIndex.cs:67 — ReviewIndex.ApplyEvent has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).

D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1

LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected depth to be zero at the end of the JSON payload. There is an open JSON object or array that should be closed. Path: $.notable[5] | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 893.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1

FileTooLong: Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 539 lines.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×1

ClassTooLong: ExhibitsController HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 519 lines, 30 methods.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:332 — HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:332-348 | HiP-DataStore/Controllers/RoutesController.cs:297-313

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:31 — HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:31-40 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:42-51 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:53-62 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:64-73 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:75-84

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:311 — HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitPagesController.cs:311-320 | HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:627-636 | HiP-DataStore/Controllers/RoutesController.cs:333-342

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:691 — HiP-DataStore/Controllers/ExhibitsController.cs:691-700 | HiP-DataStore/Controllers/RoutesController.cs:397-406

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:87 — HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:87-92 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:95-100 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:103-108 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:111-116 | HiP-DataStore/Migrations/Migration10PropertyChanged.cs:119-124

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: HiP-DataStore.Model — HiP-DataStore.Model: abstractness 0.12, instability 0.00, distance 0.88 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces and real coverage will be read.

Recommendation — 8 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×2

ObsoleteWithoutCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageCreated.cs:34 — [Obsolete] ExhibitPageCreated
ObsoleteWithoutCallers HiP-DataStore.Model/Events/ExhibitPageUpdated.cs:34 — [Obsolete] ExhibitPageUpdated

D11 · Test Reliability · No tests discovered · ×1

No tests discovered — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget) · ×1

Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget) — Dependency Hygiene couldn't be assessed within its 5-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.

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 — At 7282 LoC across 5 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1

Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Scanner failed to run · ×1

Scanner failed to run — not a clean result — osv-scanner exited 128 with no findings — the advisory database was likely unreachable. The scanner exited non-zero and produced no findings (typically the advisory DB was unreachable), so this is reported as a measurement gap rather than a clean pass.

Info — 5 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×3

XML-doc coverage: HiP-DataStore HiP-DataStore/HiP-DataStore.csproj — HiP-DataStore: 26 % XML-doc coverage (83/316).
XML-doc coverage: HiP-DataStore.Model HiP-DataStore.Model/HiP-DataStore.Model.csproj — HiP-DataStore.Model: 8 % XML-doc coverage (40/518).
XML-doc coverage: HiP-DataStore.Sdk HiP-DataStore.Sdk/HiP-DataStore.Sdk.csproj — HiP-DataStore.Sdk: 33 % XML-doc coverage (5/15).

D18 · Solution Shape · Build status unknown · ×1

Build status unknown — The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1

No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list HiP-DataStore.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	0	—
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	2	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: 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 Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: 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 Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	—

Run 019f1583-dfd6-7dfb-a571-287c1f2c076a · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Trajectory

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 65% · Adequate

At a glance — Architecture · 72% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 46% · Weak · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 33% · Weak · gated by P1, P3, P7

At a glance — Security · 76% · Strong

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts