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.
KrawMire/profitocracy carries serious gaps (43%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (27%) — 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: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped… (Release Hygiene).
For scale: Small (~8,161 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
76%
Strong
Architecture
78%
Adequate · gated by AX1
Maturity
59%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
27%
Weak · gated by P1, P2, P3
Security
49%
Weak · gated by C1
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 27% · 47% weightSecurity 49% · 26% weightMaturity 59% · 14% weightCode Health 76% · 8% weightArchitecture 78% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 27 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 43 → ~58.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 27%Plumbing 61%Tests 11%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €3,300–€17,000
| Cost to rebuild | €3,300–€17,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 43% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 40% boilerplate · 29% straight-line · 31% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€10,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 27% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
2
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
3
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 27%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
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.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+1.9 pts/run over 13 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurity
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
9.8
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
9.7
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
9.4
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
8.7
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
7.4
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
9.6
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
7.7
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
8.7
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
8.9
AX2 · Repo
Stateful singletons
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
Roadmap
First, establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, implement structured logging and observability across all services to improve monitoring. Then, maintain a changelog to track release history. After that, strengthen data protection by encrypting sensitive columns and securing keys in a vault. Finally, document significant architectural decisions to preserve context for future development.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +16.4 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +16.4 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +15.4 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps. | +6.3 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +2.9 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 1 The README gives only one concrete build step for adding new languages… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. | +1.8 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs. | +1.8 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +3.6 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Settings/SettingsModel.cs | 4.7 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsModel.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPage.xaml.cs |
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Mappers/SettingsMapper.cs | 6.1 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsMapper.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cs |
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Repositories/TransactionRepository.cs | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal (cyclomatic 17) |
| src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Views/Transactions/Pages/RecurringTransactionsPage.xaml.cs | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) |
| src/Profitocracy.Core/Domain/Model/Settings/Settings.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Settings.cs ↔ NotificationService.cs |
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Category/CategoryModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Profile/ProfileCategoryModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Profile/ProfileModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Transaction/TransactionModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Profitocracy.Mobile/ViewModels/Settings/ImportExportSettingsPageViewModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Profitocracy.Mobile/AppInit.xaml.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: AppInit.xaml.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cs |
| src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Profitocracy.Mobile.csproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Solution Shape: Shell project: Profitocracy.Mobile |
| Profitocracy.Mobile/Resources/Strings/README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The README gives only one concrete build step for adding new languages (delete the designer-generated resx file), with no guidance on creating or managing existing resources. |
| src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Platforms/MacCatalyst/Program.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
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. 45 of 48 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 48 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D28D29D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8C1GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6X1X2X3X4X5
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, 26 of 40 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
- 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.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — 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.
- D33 JS/npm 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.
- 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.
- D38 OSV 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.
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.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- 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.
- 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
1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal at 17.
TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal (cyclomatic 17)src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Repositories/TransactionRepository.cs:191
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal at 19.
TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal (cognitive 19)src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Repositories/TransactionRepository.cs:191
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
2 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (24 lines × 2)src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Views/Transactions/Pages/RecurringTransactionsPage.xaml.cs:42
Duplicated block (23 lines × 2)src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Views/Transactions/Pages/RecurringTransactionsPage.xaml.cs:71
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
7 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: Profitocracy.Infrastructure
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- 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?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 32 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
34 test methods: 34 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 34 tests.
Mock framework: Moq
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).
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?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 19 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
6 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 8161 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.4.
BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Category/CategoryModel.cs:11
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
7 projects, 245 .cs files, 9213 hand-written lines of code (8161 production / 1052 test), 10 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
Shell project: Profitocracy.Mobilesrc/Profitocracy.Mobile/Profitocracy.Mobile.csproj
Thin analysable surface across projects
Build status unknown
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Profitocracy.Mobile.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
Profitocracy's documentation is strong for a monorepo: the README gives an engaging welcome with key features and links to Android/iOS previews, plus a clipped but well-structured outline (Key Features of Profitocracy; Android Preview; iOS Preview; Installation; Android; iOS; More About Profitocracy; What is a 50-30-20 rule; Terminologies Used in Profitocracy; 💼 Profile; 🧾 Transaction; 💵 Actual and Planned Amounts of Expenses; 📊 Category; Gettings Started). The Mobile project README adds a concrete build step for adding new languages, but the rest of the monorepo is undocumented. Coverage across core/infrastructure projects is thin (5% Android XML doc coverage), so any reader relying on API docs must consult those.
The README gives only one concrete build step for adding new languages (delete the designer-generated resx file), with no guidance on creating or managing existing resources.Profitocracy.Mobile/Resources/Strings/README.md
XML-doc coverage: Profitocracy.Mobile(net9.0-android) src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Profitocracy.Mobile.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The README gives only one concrete build step for adding new languages… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
4 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
The 'Transaction' entity is represented by 'TransactionModel' in both the Mobile (UI/ViewModel layer) and Infrastructure (Persistence) layers. While the suffix 'Model' is consistent, the root name 'Transaction' vs 'TransactionModel' creates a slight inconsistency in how the core concept is named across layers.
The 'Profile' concept is named 'Profile' in the Domain, but 'ProfileModel' in the Mobile and Infrastructure layers. This is a consistent pattern (Domain uses short name, others use 'Model' suffix), so this is NOT an inconsistency.
The 'Transactions' concept is represented by 'TransactionsPageViewModel' and 'TransactionsFiltersPageViewModel'. The plural 'Transactions' is used, which is consistent.
Consistent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
12 valuable / 1 redundant across 144 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commentsrc/Profitocracy.Mobile/Platforms/MacCatalyst/Program.cs:8
What to do
- Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
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)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
1 of 43 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Views/Transactions/Pages/RecurringTransactionsPage.xaml.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: AppInit.xaml.cs↔NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cs 85%; AppInit.xaml.cs↔NotificationsSettingsPage.xaml.cs 77%; AppInit.xaml.cs↔SavedAmountModel.cs 62%
Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsModel.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPage.xaml.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Settings/SettingsModel.cs
Change coupling: AppInit.xaml.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cssrc/Profitocracy.Mobile/AppInit.xaml.cs
What to do
- Resolve the 9 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with SettingsMapper.cs (5), SettingsModel.cs (3), Settings.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with AppInit.xaml.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
- `AppInit` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `ISettingsRepository settingsRepository`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `ISettingsRepository` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. (×2) — AppInit.xaml.cs:17, AppInit.xaml.cs:17
- `AppShell` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IProfileRepository profileRepository`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IProfileRepository` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. (×2) — AppShell.xaml.cs:7, AppShell.xaml.cs:7
What to do
- Don't inject scoped/transient services into singletons; resolve them per-use via IServiceScopeFactory or a factory delegate, or align the lifetimes.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
What to do
- Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
- Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- 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 documentation
- 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 structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- 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 · 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.
- 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?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
- `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` unless this is a top-level event handler. (×4) — BaseContentPage.cs:15, HomePageViewModel.cs:198, BaseContentPage.cs:15, …
What to do
- async void method: ProcessAction
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 0/175 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) — BaseContentPage.cs:15, AppInit.xaml.cs:40, AppInit.xaml.cs:52, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- ~0.6 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 76% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 78% | Adequate — gated by AX1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 59% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 27% | Weak — gated by P1, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 49% | Weak — gated by C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 47 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.
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- 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
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — no data
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- 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 — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- 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 — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- 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
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 6 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
- 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 — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- 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
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 9 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsModel.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPage.xaml.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Settings/SettingsModel.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsModel.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Settings/SettingsModel.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsMapper.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Mappers/SettingsMapper.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsMapper.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPage.xaml.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Mappers/SettingsMapper.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsMapper.cs ↔ MauiProgram.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Mappers/SettingsMapper.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsMapper.cs ↔ AppInit.xaml.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Mappers/SettingsMapper.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsModel.cs ↔ NotificationService.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Settings/SettingsModel.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: Settings.cs ↔ NotificationService.cs src/Profitocracy.Core/Domain/Model/Settings/Settings.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: SettingsMapper.cs ↔ NotificationService.cs src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Mappers/SettingsMapper.cs
Warning — 14 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Category/CategoryModel.cs:11
- BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Profile/ProfileCategoryModel.cs:7
- BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Profile/ProfileModel.cs:10
- BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Settings/SettingsModel.cs:12
- BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Models/Transaction/TransactionModel.cs:16
- BarePragmaDisable src/Profitocracy.Mobile/ViewModels/Settings/ImportExportSettingsPageViewModel.cs:192
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: Profitocracy.Infrastructure
- Off the main sequence: Profitocracy.Core
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal (cyclomatic 17) src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Repositories/TransactionRepository.cs:191
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- TransactionRepository.GetFilteredInternal (cognitive 19) src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Persistence/Sqlite/Repositories/TransactionRepository.cs:191
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: AppInit.xaml.cs ↔ NotificationsSettingsPageViewModel.cs src/Profitocracy.Mobile/AppInit.xaml.cs
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Views/Transactions/Pages/RecurringTransactionsPage.xaml.cs:42
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (23 lines × 2) src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Views/Transactions/Pages/RecurringTransactionsPage.xaml.cs:71
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shell project: Profitocracy.Mobile src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Profitocracy.Mobile.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The README gives only one concrete build step for adding new languages (delete the designer-generated resx file), with no guidance on creating or managing existing resources. Profitocracy.Mobile/Resources/Strings/README.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D21 · Naming Consistency
- The 'Transaction' entity is represented by 'TransactionModel' in both the Mobile (UI/ViewModel layer) and Infrastructure (Persistence) layers. While the suffix 'Model' is consistent, the root name 'Transaction' vs 'TransactionModel' creates a slight inconsistency in how the core concept is named across layers.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- The 'Profile' concept is named 'Profile' in the Domain, but 'ProfileModel' in the Mobile and Infrastructure layers. This is a consistent pattern (Domain uses short name, others use 'Model' suffix), so this is NOT an inconsistency.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- The 'Transactions' concept is represented by 'TransactionsPageViewModel' and 'TransactionsFiltersPageViewModel'. The plural 'Transactions' is used, which is consistent.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Consistent.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Platforms/MacCatalyst/Program.cs:8
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
Info — 6 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: Profitocracy.Mobile(net9.0-android) src/Profitocracy.Mobile/Profitocracy.Mobile.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Profitocracy.Core src/Profitocracy.Core/Profitocracy.Core.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Profitocracy.Infrastructure src/Profitocracy.Infrastructure/Profitocracy.Infrastructure.csproj
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: Moq
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build status unknown
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 auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| 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: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 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: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |