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.
JetBrains/koog carries serious gaps (47%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (94%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (88%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (31%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Security (49%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package (Security & performance tooling).
For scale: Hobby (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.8 person-years (~1–2 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (94%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
88%
Adequate · gated by D4
Architecture
94% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
63%
Adequate
Readiness
31%
Weak · gated by D9, P2, P3
Security
49%
Weak · gated by D29, D36, D38
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 31% · 47% weightSecurity 49% · 26% weightMaturity 63% · 14% weightCode Health 88% · 8% weightArchitecture 94% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 31 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 47 → ~60.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
2
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
3
Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 50 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 33 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 5 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, address the single missing test case to improve test coverage. Next, implement structured logging using ILogger or Serilog across all projects to enhance observability. Then, introduce static analysis tools like CodeQL to strengthen security and performance tooling. After that, establish a consistent versioning strategy to ensure all builds and releases are traceable. Finally, codify backup and geo-recovery procedures in infrastructure as code to support disaster recovery plans.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +16.4 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +16.4 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package. | +16.4 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable. | +14.6 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC (snapshot/replication/geo-redundant) to back the DR plan. | +13.2 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +11.6 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +4.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +4.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock | 0.0 | Slop | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| .github/workflows/checks.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml | 4.5 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/build-xcframework.yml | 4.6 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/deploy-all-docs.yml | 4.6 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/code-agent-examples.yml | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/dependabot.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: dependabot-missing-cooldown |
| .github/workflows/demo-compose-app.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/dependency-submission.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/CliAgentsImage/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0029 |
| a2a/test-python-a2a-server/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-bedrock-client/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/bedrock/converse/BedrockConverseConverters.kt | 7.1 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) |
| prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-openai-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/openai/OpenAIParams.kt | 7.2 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) |
| .github/workflows/conventional-prs.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/deploy-dokka-docs.yml | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| agents/agents-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/core/feature/debugger/Debugger.kt | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) |
| agents/agents-features/agents-features-trace/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/tracing/feature/Tracing.kt | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) |
| agents/agents-features/agents-features-snapshot/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/snapshot/feature/Persistence.kt | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) |
| prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-anthropic-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/anthropic/AnthropicLLMClient.kt | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) |
| koog-ktor/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/ktor/KoogAgentsConfig.kt | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (235 lines × 2) |
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. 30 of 31 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 31 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D9D12D13D21D26D27D28D29D31D33D36D38AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P6X1X3X4
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, 126 of 139 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| 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 |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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").
- 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.
- 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").
- 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.
- 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.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
9 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was OpenAILLMClient.convertPromptToResponsesMessages at 24.
What to do
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
13 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was OpenAILLMClient.convertPromptToResponsesMessages at 50.
What to do
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
38 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) agents/agents-cli/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/cli/claude/ClaudeAgentBuilder.kt:111
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/feature/OpenTelemetry.kt:555
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) a2a/a2a-server/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/a2a/server/A2AServer.kt:403
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/metric/events/histogramMetricEvents.kt:61
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/attribute/GenAIAttributes.kt:642
What to do
- Resolve the 10 Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with OpenAIParams.kt (2), AnthropicParams.kt, BedrockConverseConverters.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AnthropicLLMClient.kt (2), ExposedPersistencyStorageProvider.kt, OpenTelemetry.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with A2AServer.kt, JavaKoogHttpClient.kt, Persistence.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
102 finding(s): 0 critical, 96 high, 2 medium, 4 low.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:4
What to do
- Resolve the 50 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with checks.yml (19), a2a-tck-test.yml (6), build-xcframework.yml (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (50 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 3 low.
High IaC: DS-0029 .github/CliAgentsImage/Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0026 .github/CliAgentsImage/Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
33 finding(s): 0 critical, 11 high, 21 medium, 1 low.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2132 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
Low CVE: [GHSA redacted]a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
What to do
- Resolve the 21 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with uv.lock (21). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 warning-level).
- Resolve the 11 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with uv.lock (11). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Low CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with uv.lock. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- 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 accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- 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.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC (snapshot/replication/geo-redundant) to back the DR plan.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
What to do
- Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 88% | Adequate — gated by D4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 94% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 63% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Readiness | 31% | Weak — gated by D9, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 49% | Weak — gated by D29, D36, D38 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 61 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice + CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — vertical-slice architecture detected, but individual slices could not be resolved from namespaces or project layout
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- 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.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- 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.
- D10 Test Quality — ~107842 lines of test code exist on disk but weren't loaded from the analyzed solution (excluded from the .sln, or co-located/using a test attribute not loaded here), so test quality couldn't be assessed. Include the tests in the analyzed solution to enable this check.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the codebase is trivial and has no structure to justify boundaries.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
- 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.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 873 value object(s); 18 domain event(s)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — only 1/3 markers (2 CQRS handler(s))
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — 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.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 64 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:4
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:63
- High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:73
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml:33
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml:36
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml:42
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml:45
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml:50
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/a2a-tck-test.yml:108
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-xcframework.yml:34
- High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/build-xcframework.yml:38
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-xcframework.yml:72
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-xcframework.yml:81
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build-xcframework.yml:98
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:35
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:58
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:60
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:68
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:90
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:94
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:99
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:128
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:130
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:138
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/checks.yml:165
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0029 .github/CliAgentsImage/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/Dockerfile
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
Warning — 63 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2132 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-215 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-1805 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-3455 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-3456 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-3457 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2275 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-161 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-1942 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2280 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-2281 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-248 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-249 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-141 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-1994 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-1996 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
- Medium CVE: PYSEC-2026-1998 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) agents/agents-cli/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/cli/claude/ClaudeAgentBuilder.kt:111
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) agents/agents-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/core/feature/debugger/Debugger.kt:452
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-trace/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/tracing/feature/Tracing.kt:231
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-anthropic-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/anthropic/AnthropicParams.kt:118
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-bedrock-client/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/bedrock/converse/BedrockConverseConverters.kt:586
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-dashscope-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/dashscope/DashscopeParams.kt:107
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-mistralai-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/mistralai/MistralAIParams.kt:101
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-openai-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/openai/OpenAIParams.kt:157
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-openai-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/openai/OpenAIParams.kt:413
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-openrouter-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/openrouter/OpenRouterParams.kt:135
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/feature/OpenTelemetry.kt:555
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-sql/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/sql/providers/ExposedPersistencyStorageProvider.kt:116
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-anthropic-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/anthropic/AnthropicLLMClient.kt:555
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-anthropic-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/anthropic/AnthropicLLMClient.kt:582
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) a2a/a2a-server/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/a2a/server/A2AServer.kt:403
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-snapshot/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/snapshot/feature/Persistence.kt:366
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) http-client/http-client-java/src/main/kotlin/ai/koog/http/client/java/JavaKoogHttpClient.kt:140
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/metric/events/histogramMetricEvents.kt:61
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-bedrock-client/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/bedrock/converse/BedrockConverseConverters.kt:230
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-bedrock-client/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/bedrock/converse/BedrockConverseConverters.kt:561
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/attribute/GenAIAttributes.kt:642
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-opentelemetry/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/opentelemetry/integration/weave/WeaveSpanAdapter.kt:97
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-bedrock-client/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/bedrock/converse/BedrockConverseConverters.kt:314
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-bedrock-client/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/bedrock/converse/BedrockConverseConverters.kt:608
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) rag/rag-base/src/jvmMain/kotlin/ai/koog/rag/base/files/JVMFileSystemProvider.kt:385
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) agents/agents-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/core/agent/AIAgentService.kt:36
- Duplicated block (22 lines × 2) http-client/http-client-spring-webclient/src/main/kotlin/ai/koog/http/client/spring/SpringWebClientKoogHttpClient.kt:94
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) koog-ktor/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/ktor/utils/LLMModelParser.kt:140
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-openai-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/openai/OpenAIParams.kt:271
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) agents/agents-features/agents-features-snapshot/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/snapshot/feature/Persistence.kt:213
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-openai-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/openai/OpenAIParams.kt:235
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (235 lines × 2) koog-ktor/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/ktor/KoogAgentsConfig.kt:426
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (78 lines × 2) agents/agents-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/core/agent/AIAgentBuilder.kt:98
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (33 lines × 2) agents/agents-test/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/testing/tools/MockExecutorDSLBuilder.kt:251
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) prompt/prompt-executor/prompt-executor-clients/prompt-executor-google-client/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/prompt/executor/clients/google/GoogleLLMClient.kt:496
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) agents/agents-core/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/core/feature/debugger/Debugger.kt:275
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) http-client/http-client-okhttp/src/main/kotlin/ai/koog/http/client/okhttp/OkHttpKoogHttpClient.kt:127
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) agents/agents-features/agents-features-trace/src/commonMain/kotlin/ai/koog/agents/features/tracing/feature/Tracing.kt:328
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 .github/CliAgentsImage/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 a2a/test-python-a2a-server/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 examples/koog-agentcore-runtime/Dockerfile
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Low CVE: [GHSA redacted] a2a/test-python-a2a-server/uv.lock
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| 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 /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 102 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 5 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 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 | — |
| 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 . | 33 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |