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.
MathewSachin/Captura is sound in substance but carries real gaps (57%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (98%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (96%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (44%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Code Health (58%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Nothing pauses a release for a human (Deployment & Rollback); async void method: Trim (Async correctness).
For scale: Medium (~24,132 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (98%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
58%
Adequate
Architecture
98% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
66%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
44%
Weak · gated by P2, P3
Security
96% ★
Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 44% · 47% weightCode Health 58% · 26% weightMaturity 66% · 14% weightSecurity 96% · 8% weightArchitecture 98% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 44 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 57 → ~67.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 28%Plumbing 70%Tests 2%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €12,000–€61,000
| Cost to rebuild | €12,000–€61,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 57% quality) |
| Size & shape | Medium · 43% boilerplate · 28% straight-line · 29% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€37,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 44% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
2
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
3
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 44%. 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: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
8.9
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
7.3
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
9.8
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
8.2
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
8.4
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
8.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
9.9
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement structured logging across all projects using ILogger or Serilog to establish baseline observability. Next, introduce draft release gates to prevent bad builds from reaching users, while simultaneously addressing critical async correctness issues and ensuring cancellation tokens are properly propagated. Finally, resolve the 22 instances of swallowed exceptions to improve error handling.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +13.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +12.9 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +4.6 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| async void method: Trim | +6.5 pts | Medium | Async correctness |
| Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation. | +6.5 pts | Medium | Cancellation propagation |
| Swallowed exception (empty catch) | +6.5 pts | Medium | Exception handling |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). | +4.6 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +4.5 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs | 3.8 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.Console/ConsoleManager.cs | 4.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Screna/Recorder.cs | 4.9 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/DesktopDuplicator.cs | 5.5 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FullScreenDesktopDuplicator.cs | 5.5 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/RecordingViewModel.cs | 6.1 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.Loc/LanguageManager.cs | 6.1 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.Core/Models/Recents/RecentListRepository.cs | 6.4 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/ScrollOverlay.cs | 6.7 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Captura.Windows/Imaging/Drawing/GraphicsExtensions.cs | 7.4 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cyclomatic 21) |
| src/Captura.Hotkeys/HotKeyManager.cs | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/KeymapViewModel.cs | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FrameGrabber.cs | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura/Pages/WebcamPage.xaml.cs | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Screna/Overlays/ImageOverlay.cs | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| src/Captura/Presentation/OverlayPositionAdorner.cs | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cyclomatic 36) |
| src/Captura.Console/CmdOptions/UploadCmdOptions.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Captura.Core/Models/StepWriters/ImageFolderWriter.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Captura.Fakes/FakeRegionProvider.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/Steps/KeyStep.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
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. 43 of 44 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 44 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D20D21D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P6X1X2X3X4
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, 56 of 68 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 | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | 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
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
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 (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- 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.
- 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 (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) 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.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- 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").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag at 36. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being KeyRecord.GetDisplay at 18 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cyclomatic 36)src/Captura/Presentation/OverlayPositionAdorner.cs:70
GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cyclomatic 21)src/Captura.Windows/Imaging/Drawing/GraphicsExtensions.cs:24
What to do
- Resolve the 1 OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cyclomatic 36) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with OverlayPositionAdorner.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cyclomatic 21) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with GraphicsExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
15 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag at 62.
OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cognitive 62)src/Captura/Presentation/OverlayPositionAdorner.cs:70
GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cognitive 41)src/Captura.Windows/Imaging/Drawing/GraphicsExtensions.cs:24
HotkeySelector.OnPreviewKeyDown (cognitive 25)src/Captura/Controls/HotkeySelector.cs:114
CaptureWebcam.CreateGraph (cognitive 22)src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs:208
RecordingViewModel.StopRecording (cognitive 20)src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/RecordingViewModel.cs:170
What to do
- Resolve the 1 OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cognitive 62) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with OverlayPositionAdorner.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cognitive 41) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with GraphicsExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 HotkeySelector.OnPreviewKeyDown (cognitive 25) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with HotkeySelector.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
1 god class(es) detected.
ClassTooLong: LanguageFieldssrc/Captura.Loc/LanguageFields.cs:0
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
3 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2)src/Captura.FFmpeg/Video/FFmpegWriterProvider.cs:44
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)src/Captura.Windows/MediaFoundation/MfAudioWriter.cs:59
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/ScrollOverlay.cs:37
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
18 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 128 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
27 test methods: 27 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
2 skipped (2 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 27 tests.
Skipped (documented): StartSharpAviFixedDuration src/Tests/ConsoleStartTests.cs:63
Mock framework: Moq
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 26 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?
D17 · Explicit Debt
33 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 24132 LoC (0.9/KLoC) → score 8.2.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Console/ConsoleManager.cs:186
TodoComment src/Captura.Console/CmdOptions/UploadCmdOptions.cs:47
HackComment src/Captura.Console/ConsoleManager.cs:280
BarePragmaDisablesrc/Captura.Fakes/FakeRegionProvider.cs:23
What to do
- Resolve the 22 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DesktopDuplicator.cs (4), FullScreenDesktopDuplicator.cs (4), RecentListRepository.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 issue-level).
- Resolve the 8 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UploadCmdOptions.cs, ImageFolderWriter.cs, ScrollOverlay.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 HackComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ConsoleManager.cs, MfColorConverter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
18 projects, 520 source files, 24654 hand-written lines of code (24132 production / 522 test), 95 inter-project edges.
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
1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
The interface `IVideoWriterItem` is used as a parameter name in multiple methods, but the parameter name itself is inconsistent (`M` vs `WriterItem`).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 18 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
65 % of calls cross a namespace and 10 % go through an interface, but 85 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 8.0/10. — 65 % of calls cross a namespace and 10 % go through an interface, but 85 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
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?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
2 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 10.0.2
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
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
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?
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
- `IIconSet` declares 84 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IIconSet.cs:4
- `ILocalizationProvider` declares 159 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ILocalizationProvider.cs:7
What to do
- Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
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. (×19) — RepeatFrame.cs:22, RepeatFrame.cs:27, RepeatFrame.cs:38, …
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Save` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — Direct2DImage.cs:28, Direct2DImage.cs:33
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×3) — IBitmapImage.cs:17, IBitmapImage.cs:19, ImageOverlay.cs:26
- A test is skipped ("This is failing on AppVeyor") — 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. — ConsoleStartTests.cs:63
- A test is skipped ("This is failing randomly on AppVeyor") — 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. — ScreenShotTests.cs:44
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)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 18 of 18 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- 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
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
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` — or, where the delegate contract requires void (timer/event/callback registrations), make this a thin void shim that awaits a Task-returning inner method inside try/catch so exceptions are contained. (×6) — TrimmerViewModel.cs:249, YouTubeUploaderWindow.xaml.cs:24, Recorder.cs:261, …
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` wastes a thread and, if the task needs a context this one is holding, deadlocks. `Dispose()` returns void by contract, so it cannot simply `await`: signal the work to stop first (cancel its token, set its stop flag) so the wait is short, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task cannot hang shutdown, and — where callers can use it — add an awaitable teardown (`DisposeAsync`/`StopAsync`) beside the synchronous one and let `Dispose()` remain the bounded fallback. (×3) — AudioRecorder.cs:44, Recorder.cs:275, StepsRecorder.cs:197
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×6) — FFMpegCmdOptions.cs:17, ConsoleManager.cs:161, ConsoleManager.cs:184, …
What to do
- async void method: Trim
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 4/39 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×24) — AboutPage.xaml.cs:14, OverlayPage.xaml.cs:232, OverlayPage.xaml.cs:241, …
- No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. — FFmpegConsoleManager.cs:22
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
- An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×10) — WebcamPage.xaml.cs:128, ImageOverlay.cs:31, RecentListRepository.cs:64, …
- An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. On a teardown path letting it propagate is not an option (throwing out of `Dispose()` masks the failure already in flight and abandons the rest of the cleanup), so make the swallow deliberate instead: narrow the catch to the exception this release can actually raise, and record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems — or, if it truly cannot matter, say why in a comment on the catch. (×12) — Recorder.cs:282, Recorder.cs:289, RecentListRepository.cs:105, …
What to do
- Swallowed exception (empty catch)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 58% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Architecture | 98% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 66% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 44% | Weak — gated by P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 96% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Not included — 53 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
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- 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 build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .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 supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (1 domain event(s))
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into 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 — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 24 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Console/ConsoleManager.cs:186
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Core/Models/Recents/RecentListRepository.cs:64
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Core/Models/Recents/RecentListRepository.cs:105
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Hotkeys/HotKeyManager.cs:134
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Loc/LanguageManager.cs:42
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/KeymapViewModel.cs:85
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/RecordingViewModel.cs:282
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/DesktopDuplicator.cs:40
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/DesktopDuplicator.cs:58
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/DesktopDuplicator.cs:63
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/DesktopDuplicator.cs:67
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FrameGrabber.cs:107
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FullScreenDesktopDuplicator.cs:69
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FullScreenDesktopDuplicator.cs:93
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FullScreenDesktopDuplicator.cs:98
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/FullScreenDesktopDuplicator.cs:103
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs:194
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs:505
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Captura/Pages/WebcamPage.xaml.cs:128
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Screna/Overlays/ImageOverlay.cs:31
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Screna/Recorder.cs:282
- EmptyCatchBlock src/Screna/Recorder.cs:289
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 10.0.2
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
Warning — 36 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/Captura.Console/CmdOptions/UploadCmdOptions.cs:47
- TodoComment src/Captura.Core/Models/StepWriters/ImageFolderWriter.cs:28
- TodoComment src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/ScrollOverlay.cs:8
- TodoComment src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/Steps/KeyStep.cs:19
- TodoComment src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/Steps/StepsRecorder.cs:88
- TodoComment src/Captura/Models/PreviewWindowService.cs:63
- TodoComment src/Tests/ConsoleStartTests.cs:62
- TodoComment src/Tests/ScreenShotTests.cs:43
D17 · Explicit Debt
- HackComment src/Captura.Console/ConsoleManager.cs:280
- HackComment src/Captura.Windows/MediaFoundation/MfColorConverter.cs:96
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cyclomatic 36) src/Captura/Presentation/OverlayPositionAdorner.cs:70
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cyclomatic 21) src/Captura.Windows/Imaging/Drawing/GraphicsExtensions.cs:24
D16 · Bus Factor
- dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D17 · Explicit Debt
- BarePragmaDisable src/Captura.Fakes/FakeRegionProvider.cs:23
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- OverlayPositionAdorner.HandleDrag (cognitive 62) src/Captura/Presentation/OverlayPositionAdorner.cs:70
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- GraphicsExtensions.CropEmptyEdges (cognitive 41) src/Captura.Windows/Imaging/Drawing/GraphicsExtensions.cs:24
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- HotkeySelector.OnPreviewKeyDown (cognitive 25) src/Captura/Controls/HotkeySelector.cs:114
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- CaptureWebcam.CreateGraph (cognitive 22) src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs:208
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- RecordingViewModel.StopRecording (cognitive 20) src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/RecordingViewModel.cs:170
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConsoleManager.Loop (cognitive 18) src/Captura.Console/ConsoleManager.cs:285
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- CaptureWebcam.RenderGraph (cognitive 18) src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs:403
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Recorder.DoRecord (cognitive 17) src/Screna/Recorder.cs:90
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- RecordingModel.StartRecording (cognitive 17) src/Captura.Core/ViewModels/RecordingModel.cs:248
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FFmpegLogItem.Write (cognitive 16) src/Captura.FFmpeg/FFMpegLogItem.cs:38
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FFmpegWriter.WriteFrame (cognitive 16) src/Captura.FFmpeg/Video/FFmpegVideoWriter.cs:204
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- LanguageManager.LanguageManager.ctor (cognitive 16) src/Captura.Loc/LanguageManager.cs:17
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- MonochromePointerShape.OnUpdate (cognitive 16) src/Captura.Windows/DesktopDuplication/MousePointer/MonochromePointerShape.cs:30
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- GraphicsExtensions.DifferentiateAlpha (cognitive 16) src/Captura.Windows/Imaging/Drawing/GraphicsExtensions.cs:147
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- CaptureWebcam.RemoveDownstream (cognitive 16) src/Captura.Windows/Webcam/CaptureWebcam.cs:339
D24 · Comment Value
- LLM evaluation failed
D3 · God Classes
- ClassTooLong: LanguageFields src/Captura.Loc/LanguageFields.cs:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Captura.FFmpeg/Video/FFmpegWriterProvider.cs:44
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Captura.Windows/MediaFoundation/MfAudioWriter.cs:59
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Captura.MouseKeyHook/ScrollOverlay.cs:37
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
Recommendation — 4 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test runner surfaced no tests
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D21 · Naming Consistency
- The interface `IVideoWriterItem` is used as a parameter name in multiple methods, but the parameter name itself is inconsistent (`M` vs `WriterItem`).
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
Info — 4 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- Skipped (documented): StartSharpAviFixedDuration src/Tests/ConsoleStartTests.cs:63
- Skipped (documented): ScreenShotTabs src/Tests/ScreenShotTests.cs:44
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: Moq
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list src/Captura.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 2 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| 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 build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .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 supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Phone — 13 field(s)
- IAudioSource.Microphones src/Captura.Audio/IAudioSource.cs:10
- IAudioSource.DefaultMicrophone src/Captura.Audio/IAudioSource.cs:12
- AudioSettings.RecordMicrophone src/Captura.Base/Settings/AudioSettings.cs:11
- AudioSettings.Microphone src/Captura.Base/Settings/AudioSettings.cs:17
- StartCmdOptions.Microphone src/Captura.Console/CmdOptions/StartCmdOptions.cs:31
- RecordingModelParams.Microphone src/Captura.Core/ViewModels/RecordingModelParams.cs:14
- NAudioItem.DefaultMicrophone src/Captura.NAudio/NAudioItem.cs:63
- NAudioSource.Microphones src/Captura.NAudio/NAudioSource.cs:25
- NAudioSource.DefaultMicrophone src/Captura.NAudio/NAudioSource.cs:40
- AudioSourceViewModel._microphones src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/AudioSourceViewModel.cs:17
- AudioSourceViewModel.AvailableMicrophones src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/AudioSourceViewModel.cs:20
- AudioSourceViewModel._selectedMicrophone src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/AudioSourceViewModel.cs:146
- AudioSourceViewModel.SelectedMicrophone src/Captura.ViewCore/ViewModels/AudioSourceViewModel.cs:148