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.
Marcelo-Piller/LinkPay carries serious risk (50%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Code Health (94%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (82%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (28%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (62%) 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: Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress… (Web-Security Posture); accessibility in the toolchain (A11y enforcement); Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure).
For scale: Small (~2,238 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (94%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
94% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
82%
Healthy
Maturity
62%
Fair
Readiness
28%
Poor · gated by P3, P5, P7, P8
Security
75%
Healthy
Accessibility
69%
Fair
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 30%Plumbing 66%Tests 4%
New since the last scan (7+)
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: CommonKernel shared/common-kernel/src/CommonKernel/CommonKernel.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Messaging shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Messaging.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Observability shared/observability/src/Observability/Observability.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Payments.Api services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Payments.Api.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Risk.Worker services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Risk.Worker.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Ledger.Api services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Ledger.Api.csproj
- D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Notifications.Worker services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Notifications.Worker.csproj
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,100–€5,500
| Cost to rebuild | €1,100–€5,500 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 50% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 45% boilerplate · 24% straight-line · 31% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,300 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 28% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
2
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
3
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
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 28%. 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: Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly). The rest can wait behind it.
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
8.8
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.6
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
9.4
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.9
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
8.5
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
9.9
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.7
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D22 · .NET / C#
Internal API Consistency
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
9.4
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
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 Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Accessibility
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 9 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Immediately secure the web application by enforcing HTTPS and related security headers in production. Next, integrate accessibility testing into the CI pipeline to ensure UI compliance. Reorganize the repository to separate production code from tooling, and begin documenting key architectural decisions. Finally, establish a formal disaster recovery plan with documented restore procedures.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly). | +3.1 pts | Medium | Web-Security Posture |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +2.0 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +2.0 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +1.7 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +0.8 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. | +1.6 pts | Medium | Forms & labels |
| The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell). | +1.3 pts | Medium | Code composition |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| services/frontend/web/static/app.js | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: static/app.js |
| shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Services/InboxConsumerBackgroundService.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) |
| services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Infrastructure/PaymentsDbContext.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) |
| services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Infrastructure/RiskDbContext.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) |
| shared/common-kernel/src/CommonKernel/CommonKernel.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: CommonKernel |
| shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Messaging.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Messaging |
| shared/observability/src/Observability/Observability.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Observability |
| services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Payments.Api.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Payments.Api |
| services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Risk.Worker.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Risk.Worker |
| services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Ledger.Api.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Ledger.Api |
| services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Notifications.Worker.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Notifications.Worker |
| services/frontend/Dockerfile | 9.3 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: Low IaC: DS-0026 |
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. 55 of 58 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 — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D31D35AC1AC2AC3AC5AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5
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, 33 of 110 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 | Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | ◐ 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.
- 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.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct, and component-wrapped fields (e.g. a <TextField>) are skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
The LLM boundary
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
1 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: static/app.jsservices/frontend/web/static/app.js:0
What to do
- Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with app.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes 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?
D4 · Code Duplication
3 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Services/InboxConsumerBackgroundService.cs:178
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3)services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Infrastructure/PaymentsDbContext.cs:52
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Infrastructure/RiskDbContext.cs:28
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
12 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: Observability
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 8 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
6 test methods: 5 unit, 1 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
1 skipped (1 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 6 tests.
Skipped (documented): Placeholderservices/payments/tests/Payments.IntegrationTests/PaymentsApiSmokeTests.cs:5
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
47 outdated, 1 vulnerable, 6 deprecated packages.
Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
What to do
- Resolve the 6 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene 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?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 23 packages use a banned license.
Licenses scanned
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 5 dead symbols across 2238 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.4.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
12 projects, 72 .cs files, 2333 hand-written lines of code (2238 production / 95 test), 34 inter-project edges.
CommonKernel (Production)shared/common-kernel/src/CommonKernel/CommonKernel.csproj
Messaging (Production)shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Messaging.csproj
Observability (Production)shared/observability/src/Observability/Observability.csproj
Payments.Api (Production)services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Payments.Api.csproj
Risk.Worker (Production)services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Risk.Worker.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project features a comprehensive set of documentation files, including a detailed README, architecture diagrams, and API contracts. The documentation is generally well-structured and covers key aspects like event choreography, reliability patterns, and data ownership. However, the project suffers from a critical lack of XML documentation in the codebase (0% coverage across all projects), which severely impacts the quality of auto-generated API references and code-level documentation. Additionally, the main README contains significant typographical errors in the Portuguese text, and the infrastructure READMEs are extremely sparse.
Low XML-doc coverage: CommonKernel shared/common-kernel/src/CommonKernel/CommonKernel.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 7 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with CommonKernel.csproj, Ledger.Api.csproj, Messaging.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-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
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.
No exposed public API
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
1 valuable / 5 redundant across 6 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
What to do
- Improve Comment Value — currently 6.5/10. — 1 valuable / 5 redundant across 6 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 12 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
96 % of calls cross a namespace and 6 % go through an interface, but 95 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
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?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
9 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 5 low.
High IaC: DS-0002 services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0026 services/frontend/Dockerfile
What to do
- Resolve the 4 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Resolve the 5 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC1 · Text alternatives
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×2) — extrato.html:80, index.html:129
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC5 · ARIA correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful 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?
C2 · Access Controls
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A placeholder string ("merchant@example.com") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — NotificationLog.cs:9
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- A test is skipped ("Requires running dependencies (PostgreSQL, Redis, RabbitMQ).") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. — PaymentsApiSmokeTests.cs:5
What to do
- 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)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 12 of 12 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.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
- Only 3/12 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
- Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 6/7 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.
- Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.
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?
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?
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
- The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.
What to do
- Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
- `EnsureCreated()` builds the schema once and can't evolve it — there's no upgrade path for an existing production database, and it bypasses the migrations history. Use EF migrations (`dotnet ef migrations add` + `Migrate()` on startup) so schema changes are versioned and applied safely. — Program.cs:111
What to do
- Replace EnsureCreated() with EF migrations so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — Program.cs:90
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
What to do
- Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
- Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 9/12 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. (×3) — CorrelationIdMiddleware.cs:16, IdempotencyCache.cs:16, IdempotencyCache.cs:46
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
- ~0.1 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 · Text alternatives | 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5 | Partial signal |
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 94% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 82% | Healthy | Solid. |
| Maturity | 62% | Fair | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Readiness | 28% | Poor — gated by P3, P5, P7, P8 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 75% | Healthy | Solid. |
| Accessibility | 69% | Fair | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
Not included — 33 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No styled element found in the parsed markup — AC6 not applicable here.
- 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
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D16 Bus Factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 1 value object(s); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
- ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 2 event handler(s); a message-bus package
- 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
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 5 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Dockerfile
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
Warning — 22 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: CommonKernel shared/common-kernel/src/CommonKernel/CommonKernel.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Messaging shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Messaging.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Observability shared/observability/src/Observability/Observability.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Payments.Api services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Payments.Api.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Risk.Worker services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Risk.Worker.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Ledger.Api services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Ledger.Api.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: Notifications.Worker services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Notifications.Worker.csproj
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: xunit
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: Observability
- Off the main sequence: CommonKernel
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: static/app.js services/frontend/web/static/app.js:0
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Services/InboxConsumerBackgroundService.cs:178
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Infrastructure/PaymentsDbContext.cs:52
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Infrastructure/RiskDbContext.cs:28
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 17 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 services/frontend/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Dockerfile
D16 · Bus Factor
- early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
Info — 66 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions
- Outdated: RabbitMQ.Client
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime
- Outdated: Serilog.AspNetCore
- Outdated: Serilog.Extensions.Hosting
- Outdated: Serilog.Sinks.Console
- Outdated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL
- Outdated: StackExchange.Redis
- Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL
- Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore
D10 · Test Quality
- Skipped (documented): Placeholder services/payments/tests/Payments.IntegrationTests/PaymentsApiSmokeTests.cs:5
D14 · License Compliance
- Licenses scanned
D18 · Solution Shape
- CommonKernel (Production) shared/common-kernel/src/CommonKernel/CommonKernel.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Messaging (Production) shared/messaging/src/Messaging/Messaging.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Observability (Production) shared/observability/src/Observability/Observability.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Payments.Api (Production) services/payments/src/Payments.Api/Payments.Api.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Risk.Worker (Production) services/risk/src/Risk.Worker/Risk.Worker.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Ledger.Api (Production) services/ledger/src/Ledger.Api/Ledger.Api.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Notifications.Worker (Production) services/notifications/src/Notifications.Worker/Notifications.Worker.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Payments.UnitTests (Test) services/payments/tests/Payments.UnitTests/Payments.UnitTests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Payments.IntegrationTests (Test) services/payments/tests/Payments.IntegrationTests/Payments.IntegrationTests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Risk.UnitTests (Test) services/risk/tests/Risk.UnitTests/Risk.UnitTests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Ledger.UnitTests (Test) services/ledger/tests/Ledger.UnitTests/Ledger.UnitTests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- Notifications.UnitTests (Test) services/notifications/tests/Notifications.UnitTests/Notifications.UnitTests.csproj
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D9 · Test Distribution
- Unit tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- Integration tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- BDD tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- E2E tests
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 config --format json --quiet . | 9 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: 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 | — |