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.
LeftTwixWand/eShopOnWinUI carries serious gaps (50%). 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 (92%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Domain Modelling (87%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Security (43%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Maturity (44%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Expand the README with getting-started (Documentation (README)).
For scale: Small (~3,074 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (92%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
65%
Adequate
Architecture
92% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
44%
Weak · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
55%
Adequate · gated by D8, P3
Security
43%
Weak · gated by C1
Domain Modelling
87%
Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Security 43% · 46% weightMaturity 44% · 25% weightReadiness 55% · 14% weightCode Health 65% · 8% weightDomain Modelling 87% · 4% weightArchitecture 92% · 2% weight
Raise Security 43 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 50 → ~55.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 10%Plumbing 83%Tests 3%Generated 4%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,200–€6,000
| Cost to rebuild | €1,200–€6,000 |
| Domain complexity | High |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 50% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 61% boilerplate · 28% straight-line · 11% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,600 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 43% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
2
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
3
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
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 Security at 43%. 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: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+7.9 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain Modelling
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
9.5
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.8
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
8.3
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.4
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
7.5
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX7 · Repo
Slice cohesion
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
AX9 · Repo
CQS / query purity
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
Roadmap
Immediately encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys in a vault to secure the system. Simultaneously, begin logging significant architectural decisions and expand the README to provide a clear, accurate overview of the project. Finally, resolve the remaining orphaned files and update the documentation to ensure it accurately reflects the current state of the codebase.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +5.2 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +4.6 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). | +6.9 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +6.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map. | +6.3 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Reconcile the README with reality: Architecture section is stale and obsolete. | +5.0 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 1.0/10. | +4.4 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production. | +3.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Features/Product/GetProductById.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/Navigation/NavigationService.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/Behaviors/NavigationViewHeaderBehavior.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| tests/Inventory.Application.UnitTests/UnitTest1.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): Test1 |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/CQRS/Decorators/QueryDiagnostics/DiagnosticQueryHandlerDecorator.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Features/Product/DeleteProducts.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/SeedWork/Events/DomainEventBase.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Warehouses/Warehouse.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/App.xaml.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/ThemeSelector/ThemeSelectorService.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/Helpers/TitleBarHelper.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (10 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. 54 of 57 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 — 57 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D28D29D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P11P2P3P4P8X1X2X3X4X5
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, 19 of 26 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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- 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.
- 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.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- 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".
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
1 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/Helpers/TitleBarHelper.cs:24
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
5 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: eShopOnWinUI.Domain
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 7 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
Line coverage 0.0%, branch coverage 0.0%.
What to do
- Enforce Code Coverage 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?
D9 · Test Distribution
1 test methods: 1 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Tests co-located / outside the solution
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 1 tests.
No assertions (empty test): Test1tests/Inventory.Application.UnitTests/UnitTest1.cs:5
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with UnitTest1.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Test Quality 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?
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 34 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
12 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 3074 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.5.
TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/CQRS/Decorators/QueryDiagnostics/DiagnosticQueryHandlerDecorator.cs:17
CommentedOutCodesrc/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/ThemeSelector/ThemeSelectorService.cs:46
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
5 projects, 150 .cs files, 3074 hand-written lines of code (3074 production / 0 test), plus 126 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 4 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
Build status unknown
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README is a thin one-file documentation that describes the project as an inventory sample rebranded to WinUI 3 with DDD/Clean Architecture and lists a skeletal 'Readme structure' outline (1-5) plus two inline images. It does not describe what the app actually does, how it is built, or where to find architecture details such as layers, repositories, services, or domain models. The architecture section points to an obsolete drawio diagram and no XML docs; the technologies list is empty.
XML-doc coverage: eShopOnWinUI.Application src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/eShopOnWinUI.Application.csproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 1.0/10. — The single README is a thin one-file documentation that describes the project as an inventory sample rebranded to WinUI 3 with DDD/Clean Architecture and lists a skeletal 'Readme structure' outline (1-5) plus two inline images. It does not describe what the app actually does, how it is built, or where to find architecture details such as layers, repositories, services, or domain models. The architecture section points to an obsolete drawio diagram and no XML docs; the technologies list is empty.
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
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
16 valuable / 0 redundant across 63 sampled comments.
What to do
- Improve Comment Value — currently 7.0/10. — 16 valuable / 0 redundant across 63 sampled comments.
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
8 of 8 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/Navigation/NavigationService.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX7 · Slice cohesion
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
- No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
- Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
- Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
- `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Customer.cs:7
- `Product` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Product.cs:6
- `Shipment` is an aggregate/entity with 9 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Shipment.cs:7
What to do
- Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
- `Customer` exposes public setter(s) (Picture). — Customer.cs:7
What to do
- Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×7) — ProductsRepository.cs:31, WarehousesRepository.cs:12, WarehousesRepository.cs:17, …
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetProducts.cs:11
- `Loaded` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — ProductsViewModel.cs:54
- `Apply` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — ActualProductQuantityProjection.cs:35
- `DeleteManyByIdAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — ProductsRepository.cs:29
- `GetByIdAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — WarehousesRepository.cs:10
- `GetFromSnapshotAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — WarehousesRepository.cs:15
- `GetManyByIdAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — WarehousesRepository.cs:20
- `ConvertBack` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — ImageConverter.cs:22, SelectionModeToBooleanConverter.cs:20, ValueConverterGroup.cs:12
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×4) — ThemeSelectorService.cs:50, ThemeSelectorService.cs:59, WarehouseEntityTypeConfiguration.cs:34, …
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
- The root README is 84 words — likely missing build/run/architecture context.
What to do
- Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 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
- Architecture section is stale and obsolete
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: Architecture section is stale and obsolete.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P11 · BDD / executable specs
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 2/5 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
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.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
- EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.
What to do
- Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
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. — App.xaml.cs:36
What to do
- async void method: OnLaunched
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 15/21 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. (×6) — ActivationHandler.cs:20, ProductViewModel.cs:13, ActivationService.cs:11, …
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
- 2/5 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
- ~0.7 `!` 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 | 65% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Architecture | 92% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 44% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 55% | Adequate — gated by D8, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 43% | Weak — gated by C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 87% | Strong | Solid. |
Not included — 45 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
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 3074 LoC the codebase is small despite 5 projects and no boundaries declared, so explicit bounded-context boundaries are not needed.
- 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 — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
- 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
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 9 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
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- 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 — 1 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions (empty test): Test1 tests/Inventory.Application.UnitTests/UnitTest1.cs:5
Warning — 14 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/CQRS/Decorators/QueryDiagnostics/DiagnosticQueryHandlerDecorator.cs:17
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Features/Product/DeleteProducts.cs:34
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Features/Product/GetProductById.cs:29
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Features/Product/GetProductById.cs:32
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/SeedWork/Events/DomainEventBase.cs:11
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Warehouses/Warehouse.cs:34
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/App.xaml.cs:48
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/Navigation/NavigationService.cs:119
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/Navigation/NavigationService.cs:157
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/Behaviors/NavigationViewHeaderBehavior.cs:70
- TodoComment src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/Behaviors/NavigationViewHeaderBehavior.cs:81
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/Services/ThemeSelector/ThemeSelectorService.cs:46
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/Helpers/TitleBarHelper.cs:24
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: eShopOnWinUI.Domain
Recommendation — 3 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
Info — 8 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: eShopOnWinUI.Application src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/eShopOnWinUI.Application.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: eShopOnWinUI.Domain src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/eShopOnWinUI.Domain.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure src/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure/eShopOnWinUI.Infrastructure.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: eShopOnWinUI.Persistence src/eShopOnWinUI.Persistence/eShopOnWinUI.Persistence.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: eShopOnWinUI.Presentation src/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation/eShopOnWinUI.Presentation.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build status unknown
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D9 · Test Distribution
- Tests co-located / outside the solution
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 — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 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 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Address — 4 field(s)
- SampleCompany.PostalCode src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Models/SampleCompany.cs:38
- ShipmentPostalCodeMustContainsOnlyNumbers.PostalCode src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Shipments/Rules/ShipmentPostalCodeMustContainsOnlyNumbers.cs:5
- ShipmentPostalCodeMustNotBeEmpty.PostalCode src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Shipments/Rules/ShipmentPostalCodeMustNotBeEmpty.cs:4
- Shipment.PostalCode src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Shipments/Shipment.cs:32
Name — 4 field(s)
- Customer.FirstName src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Customer.cs:23
- Customer.LastName src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Customer.cs:25
- CustomerFirstNameMustNotBeEmpty.FirstName src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Rules/CustomerFirstNameMustNotBeEmpty.cs:5
- CustomerLastNameMustNotBeEmpty.LastName src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Rules/CustomerLastNameMustNotBeEmpty.cs:5
Phone — 4 field(s)
- SampleCompany.Phone src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Models/SampleCompany.cs:48
- SampleOrder.ShipperPhone src/eShopOnWinUI.Application/Models/SampleOrder.cs:18
- Customer.Phone src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Customer.cs:29
- CustomerPhoneMustBeValid.Phone src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Rules/CustomerPhoneMustBeValid.cs:6
Email — 2 field(s)
- Customer.Email src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Customer.cs:31
- CustomerEmailMustBeValid.Email src/eShopOnWinUI.Domain/Customers/Rules/CustomerEmailMustBeValid.cs:6