Public report — IGroceryStore, published 29 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-06-2026 @ 21:48 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Nairda015/IGroceryStore

No regression bounded contexts not declared
46% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Adequate
Event-Driven 75% Strong Code Health 75% Strong Architecture 68% Adequate Security 63% Adequate Maturity 51% Adequate Readiness 30% Weak

Small · 4,567 LoC · 21 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (30%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

59/62dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
66findings with an exact file:lineof 154 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
62/96dimensions across the health lenses4567 LoC · 21 projects — wide & deep

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.

Nairda015/IGroceryStore carries serious risk (46%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (30%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (51%) 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: 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene (Dependency Hygiene); Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience).

For scale: Small (~4,567 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 75% Strong Architecture 68% Adequate · gated by AX8 Maturity 51% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 30% Weak · gated by D8, D12, P5, P7, P8 Security 63% Adequate · gated by D36 Event-Driven 75% Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 30% · 46% weightMaturity 51% · 25% weightSecurity 63% · 14% weightArchitecture 68% · 8% weightCode Health 75% · 4% weightEvent-Driven 75% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 30 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 46 → ~60.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 86%Tests 7%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,900–€9,200
Cost to rebuild€1,900–€9,200 (0.1 person-years (31–96 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityVery high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 46% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 56% boilerplate · 36% straight-line · 8% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€5,500 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 30% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×2.0) — microservices, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+11.8 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
2
Resolve the 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+14.8 pts · Medium effort · Dependency Hygiene
3
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
+14.8 pts · Medium effort · DR & Backup

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 30%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (4,567 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 30%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+5.3 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +5.3 pts/run over 5 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 46, unchanged across 5 runs.

025507510029 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityEvent-Driven

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch API API ctx:Baskets Baskets Contracts · Core API->ctx:Baskets ctx:Products Products Contracts · Core API->ctx:Products ctx:Shops Shops Contracts · Core API->ctx:Shops ctx:Users Users Contracts · Core API->ctx:Users IntegrationTests IntegrationTests UnitTests UnitTests Products.IntegrationTests Products.IntegrationTests Products.UnitTests Products.UnitTests Shops.IntegrationTests Shops.IntegrationTests Shops.UnitTests Shops.UnitTests Users.IntegrationTests Users.IntegrationTests Users.UnitTests Users.UnitTests Worker Worker Worker->ctx:Baskets ctx:Notifications Notifications Notifications Worker->ctx:Notifications Worker->ctx:Products Worker->ctx:Shops Worker->ctx:Users ctx:Baskets->ctx:Products ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared) Shared (src/Shared/Shared) Shared (src/Shared/Shared) ctx:Baskets->ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared) ctx:Baskets->ctx:Shops ctx:Baskets->ctx:Users ctx:Notifications->ctx:Baskets ctx:Notifications->ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared) ctx:Notifications->ctx:Shops ctx:Notifications->ctx:Users ctx:Products->ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared) ctx:Shared (tests/Shared) Shared (tests/Shared) Shared (tests/Shared) ctx:Shared (tests/Shared)->ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared) ctx:Shops->ctx:Products ctx:Shops->ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared) ctx:Shops->ctx:Users ctx:Users->ctx:Shared (src/Shared/Shared)

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.5 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 8.1 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.5
The Bad
D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 5.6
The Ugly
IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 4.4

At a glance — Architecture · 68% · Adequate · gated by AX8

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.2 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.0 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 7.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.6 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.8 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 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 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Ugly
AX8 · Repo Test isolation 0.0

At a glance — Maturity · 51% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 7.8 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0
The Ugly
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 4.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 30% · Weak · gated by D8, D12, P5, P7, P8

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 8.5 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 9.6 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.3 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0
The Ugly
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 1.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 3.0

At a glance — Security · 63% · Adequate · gated by D36

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.9 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0
The Bad
S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.5
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0 C1 · Repo Data Protection 4.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 75% · Strong

The Good
ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0
The Bad
ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 5.7

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration2Medium

Roadmap

First, address the 10 deprecated dependencies to improve overall hygiene. Next, codify disaster recovery by documenting RTO/RPO and restore procedures in infrastructure as code, as current backups are insufficient. Then, enhance outbound HTTP resilience by implementing retry policies to prevent external failures from taking down the application. After that, replace EnsureCreated() with EF migrations to ensure safe and reproducible schema changes. Finally, implement readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update strategy to enable automatic rollback of bad releases.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+11.8 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+14.8 ptsMediumDependency Hygiene
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.+14.8 ptsMediumDR & Backup
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.+14.8 ptsMediumOutbound HTTP resilience
Replace EnsureCreated() with EF migrations so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.+14.8 ptsMediumSchema migrations
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.+12.1 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+11.4 ptsMediumObservability
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+4.5 ptsLowADR Quality

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 45 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 11% mixed · 89% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: Dead code: UpdatePassword
src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Shops/AddShopChain.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tools/terraform/dev/main.tf7.2MixedIaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: AWS-0024
src/Shared/Shared/Configuration/GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Worker/Program.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/API/Program.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/AddProductsToBasket.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Products/Products.Core/Features/Categories/Commands/UpdateCategory.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Products/Products.Core/ReadModels/ProductDetailsReadModel.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Shared/Shared/EndpointBuilders/Extensions.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Shared/Shared/EndpointBuilders/IGroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Users/Users.Core/Features/Tokens/Login.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/Users/Users.IntegrationTests/Users/GetUserTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
tests/Users/Users.IntegrationTests/Users/RegisterTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/RemoveBasket.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: RemoveBasket
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/RemoveProductsFromBasket.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: RemoveProductsFromBasket
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/UpdateBasketDetails.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: UpdateBasketDetails
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Products/AddProductToFavorite.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: AddProductToFavorite
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Products/RateProduct.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: RateProduct
src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/ReadModels/EventMappers.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: EventMappers

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. 59 of 62 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 0.8 — 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.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 62 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D26D27D28D29D31D34D35D36AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C2ED1ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. 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, 66 of 154 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f155a-bb31-77c1-bc88-64d7d56e4ff1.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

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

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • 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

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D22, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)src/Products/Products.Core/Persistence/Contexts/ProductsDbContext.cs:34

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

20 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: Products.Contracts · ×6

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 12 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5)src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:12

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D8 · Code Coverage1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 0.0%, branch coverage 0.0%.

What to do

  1. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.

D9 · Test Distribution8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 test methods: 0 unit, 2 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

What to do

  1. Improve Test Distribution — currently 8.5/10. — 2 test methods: 0 unit, 2 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 2 tests.

Mock framework: Moq

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

55 outdated, 4 vulnerable, 10 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: MongoDB.Driver · ×4
Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions · ×10
Outdated: EventStore.Client.Grpc.Streams · ×55

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 57 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

16 deducted debt markers + 24 dead symbols across 4567 LoC (1.3/KLoC) → score 7.5.

Dead code: RemoveBasket · ×24src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/RemoveBasket.cs:3
TodoComment · ×11src/API/Program.cs:106
CommentedOutCode · ×5src/Shared/Shared/Configuration/GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs:46

What to do

  1. Resolve the 24 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with User.cs (5), AddProductToFavorite.cs, AddPromotion.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 11 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AddShopChain.cs (3), Program.cs (2), AddProductsToBasket.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs (2), Extensions.cs, IGroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D18 · Solution Shape5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 projects, 215 .cs files, 4906 hand-written lines of code (4567 production / 339 test), 101 inter-project edges.

Shell project: Baskets.Contracts · ×10src/Baskets/Baskets.Contracts/Baskets.Contracts.csproj
Thin analysable surface across projects

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Baskets.Contracts.csproj, Baskets.IntegrationTests.csproj, Baskets.UnitTests.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The README is a solid one-page overview of the loosely coupled monolith IGroceryStore with an accompanying projects structure diagram and a brief list of main features. It names each module (Basket, Users, Shops, Products) and lists available actions for each, but it does not cover architecture decisions such as event-store vs. MongoDb persistence, token-storage options, or the unshown requirements section. The README is thin on concrete guidance for new contributors.

XML-doc coverage: Baskets.Core · ×12src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Baskets.Core.csproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — The README is a solid one-page overview of the loosely coupled monolith IGroceryStore with an accompanying projects structure diagram and a brief list of main features. It names each module (Basket, Users, Shops, Products) and lists available actions for each, but it does not cover architecture decisions such as event-store vs. MongoDb persistence, token-storage options, or the unshown requirements section. The README is thin on concrete guidance for new contributors.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The word 'Address' is consistently misspelled as 'Adress' in the codebase. While this is a typo, it is a pervasive inconsistency in the domain model where the correct spelling should be used.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The word 'Address' is consistently misspelled as 'Adress' in the… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 API inconsistencies across 8 exposed types.

Inconsistent identifier types for the same domain concept (Product). ProductAddedToShop and ProductPriceChanged use `ulong` for ProductId, while ProductPriceReported also uses `ulong`. However, looking at UserCreated, it uses `Guid` for UserId. The inconsistency is not between ProductId fields, but potentially in the broader system if other entities use different ID types. However, within this specific snippet, the ProductId is consistently `ulong`. A more significant inconsistency is the naming convention for events: some are concrete classes (ProductAddedToShop, ProductPriceChanged) while others are interfaces (IProductPriceChanged, IProductPriceReported). This creates a mixed public API surface where consumers must handle both interfaces and concrete classes for similar event types.
Redundant or overlapping event types. `ProductAddedToShop` and `ProductPriceChanged` both contain `ProductId` and `ShopChainId`. While they carry different data (InitialPrice vs NewPrice/IsLowestPrice), the structural similarity suggests they might be unified or at least follow a strict naming and structural convention. The current state is acceptable but could be tighter.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent identifier types for the same domain concept (Product).… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Redundant or overlapping event types. `ProductAddedToShop` and… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 21 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

96 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 1 low.

Medium IaC: AWS-0024tools/terraform/dev/main.tfdetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: AWS-0025tools/terraform/dev/main.tfdetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

19 of 19 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Products/Products.Core/Persistence/Configurations/ProductsDbConfiguration.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

AX6 · Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

AX8 · Test isolation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

  • `Baskets.IntegrationTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Baskets.UnitTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Products.IntegrationTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Products.UnitTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Shops.IntegrationTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Shops.UnitTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Users.IntegrationTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
  • `Users.UnitTests` (production) references the test project `Shared (tests/Shared)`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.

What to do

  • Remove every production → test project reference: extract any shared test helper into a production support library (which the tests reference), or invert the dependency so the test project depends on production — not the reverse.
AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C1 · Data Protection4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write5.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

  • `UpdateCategoryHandler.HandleAsync` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — UpdateCategory.cs:38
  • `CreateProductHandler.HandleAsync` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — CreateProduct.cs:47
  • `RegisterHandler.HandleAsync` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — Register.cs:50

What to do

  • Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ED5 · Idempotency9.6 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

  • `Commands.AddAllergenHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — AddAllergen.cs:31

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×9) — Promotion.cs:28, Promotion.cs:33, Promotion.cs:48, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs4.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `Use` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. (×5) — BasketsModule.cs:36, NotificationsModule.cs:23, ProductsModule.cs:31, …
  • `HandleAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — FindSimilar.cs:25
  • `CheckIfPromotionIsApplicable` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — Promotion.cs:26, Promotion.cs:46, Promotion.cs:63
  • `CalculateFinalPrice` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — Promotion.cs:31, Promotion.cs:51, Promotion.cs:68
  • `ShopChainExistByNameAsync` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — ShopsRepository.cs:82
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×9) — GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs:48, GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs:75, Extensions.cs:60, …

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.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 21 of 21 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

  • README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P2 · Observability7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Only 3/7 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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 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.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

  • 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.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

  • 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.
P8 · Schema migrations3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

  • `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. — PostgresInitializer.cs:28

What to do

  • Replace EnsureCreated() with EF migrations so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.
S1 · Web-Security Posture6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • `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. — JwtSettings.cs:21
  • 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 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.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

X2 · Cancellation propagation8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 36/53 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. (×17) — AddProduct.cs:20, AddProductToShop.cs:22, UpdateProductPrice.cs:22, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

X5 · Nullable reference types9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • ~0.6 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

  • Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health75%StrongSolid.
Architecture68%Adequate — gated by AX8Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity51%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness30%Weak — gated by D8, D12, P5, P7, P8Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security63%Adequate — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven75%StrongStrongest area.
Not included — 35 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • 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.
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 20 value object(s); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
  • ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (an event-store package (Marten/EventStore))
  • 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 — coverage data present but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
  • 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.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Issue — 4 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×4
  • Vulnerable: MongoDB.Driver — MongoDB.Driver 2.18.0 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Jaeger — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Jaeger 1.4.0-beta.3 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore 1.0.0-rc9.9 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http 1.0.0-rc9.9 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 63 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×24
  • Dead code: RemoveBasket src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/RemoveBasket.cs:3 — NamedType RemoveBasket — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: RemoveProductsFromBasket src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/RemoveProductsFromBasket.cs:3 — NamedType RemoveProductsFromBasket — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: UpdateBasketDetails src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/UpdateBasketDetails.cs:3 — NamedType UpdateBasketDetails — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: AddProductToFavorite src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Products/AddProductToFavorite.cs:3 — NamedType AddProductToFavorite — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: RateProduct src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Products/RateProduct.cs:3 — NamedType RateProduct — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: EventMappers src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/ReadModels/EventMappers.cs:3 — NamedType EventMappers — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: AddTrustPoints src/Shops/Shops.Core/Entities/User.cs:30 — Method AddTrustPoints — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: CalculateBasketPrice src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Basket/CalculateBasketPrice.cs:3 — NamedType CalculateBasketPrice — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: ApplyPromotion src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Products/ApplyPromotion.cs:3 — NamedType ApplyPromotion — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: MarkAsUnavailable src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Products/MarkAsUnavailable.cs:3 — NamedType MarkAsUnavailable — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: VerifyPrice src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Products/VerifyPrice.cs:3 — NamedType VerifyPrice — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: AddPromotion src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Promotions/AddPromotion.cs:3 — NamedType AddPromotion — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: RateShop src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Shops/RateShop.cs:3 — NamedType RateShop — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: AddTrustPoints src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Users/AddTrustPoints.cs:3 — NamedType AddTrustPoints — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: BrandHasReferenceException src/Products/Products.Core/Exceptions/BrandHasReferenceException.cs:6 — NamedType BrandHasReferenceException — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: BrandNotFoundException src/Products/Products.Core/Exceptions/BrandNotFoundException.cs:7 — NamedType BrandNotFoundException — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: UpdateAllergen src/Products/Products.Core/Features/Allergens/Commands/UpdateAllergen.cs:3 — NamedType UpdateAllergen — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: UpdateDetails src/Products/Products.Core/Features/Products/Commands/UpdateDetails.cs:3 — NamedType UpdateDetails — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: FindProductFreeFrom src/Products/Products.Core/Features/Products/Queries/FindProductFreeFrom.cs:8 — NamedType FindProductFreeFrom — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: UpdatePassword src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:43 — Method UpdatePassword — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: UpdateEmail src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:53 — Method UpdateEmail — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: ConfirmEmail src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:58 — Method ConfirmEmail — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: EnableTwoTwoFactor src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:63 — Method EnableTwoTwoFactor — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: RemoveUserById tests/Users/Users.IntegrationTests/UserTestHelper.cs:13 — Method RemoveUserById — no references found in solution.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×11
  • TodoComment src/API/Program.cs:106 — // TODO: is this needed? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Features/Baskets/AddProductsToBasket.cs:38 — //TODO: check if stream exist and add error handling — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Products/Products.Core/Features/Categories/Commands/UpdateCategory.cs:22 — //TODO: fix this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Products/Products.Core/ReadModels/ProductDetailsReadModel.cs:15 — //TODO: Add img — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Shops/AddShopChain.cs:24 — //.RequireAuthorization() //TODO: admin policy — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Shops/AddShopChain.cs:52 — // TODO: — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Shops/Shops.Core/Features/Shops/AddShopChain.cs:65 — //TODO: add location — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Users/Users.Core/Features/Tokens/Login.cs:17 — //TODO: does it work? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/Worker/Program.cs:39 — //TODO: remove later — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Users/Users.IntegrationTests/Users/GetUserTests.cs:53 — // TODO: Something is wrong with scrubber — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment tests/Users/Users.IntegrationTests/Users/RegisterTests.cs:14 — //TODO: Add check for harness — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×10
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: OpenTelemetry.Contrib.Instrumentation.AWS — OpenTelemetry.Contrib.Instrumentation.AWS 1.0.2 — Legacy OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AWS >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Jaeger — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Jaeger 1.4.0-beta.3 — Legacy OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore 1.0.0-rc9.9 — Other OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore >= 1.8.1
  • Deprecated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http 1.0.0-rc9.9 — Other OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http >= 1.8.1
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization.Policy — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization.Policy 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Verify.Xunit — Verify.Xunit 19.1.0 — Legacy Verify.XunitV3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×6
  • Off the main sequence: Products.Contracts — Products.Contracts: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Users.Contracts — Users.Contracts: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Shops.Contracts — Shops.Contracts: abstractness 0.20, instability 0.00, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Products.Core — Products.Core: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.22, distance 0.78 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Users.Core — Users.Core: abstractness 0.04, instability 0.20, distance 0.76 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Shared — Shared: abstractness 0.30, instability 0.00, distance 0.70 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×5
  • CommentedOutCode src/Shared/Shared/Configuration/GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs:46 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Shared/Shared/EndpointBuilders/Extensions.cs:50 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Worker/Program.cs:18 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Shared/Shared/Configuration/GroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs:72 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode src/Shared/Shared/EndpointBuilders/IGroceryStoreRouteBuilder.cs:14 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent identifier types for the same domain concept (Product). ProductAddedToShop and ProductPriceChanged use `ulong` for ProductId, while ProductPriceReported also uses `ulong`. However, looking at UserCreated, it uses `Guid` for UserId. The inconsistency is not between ProductId fields, but potentially in the broader system if other entities use different ID types. However, within this specific snippet, the ProductId is consistently `ulong`. A more significant inconsistency is the naming convention for events · ×1
  • Inconsistent identifier types for the same domain concept (Product). ProductAddedToShop and ProductPriceChanged use `ulong` for ProductId, while ProductPriceReported also uses `ulong`. However, looking at UserCreated, it uses `Guid` for UserId. The inconsistency is not between ProductId fields, but potentially in the broader system if other entities use different ID types. However, within this specific snippet, the ProductId is consistently `ulong`. A more significant inconsistency is the naming convention for events: some are concrete classes (ProductAddedToShop, ProductPriceChanged) while others are interfaces (IProductPriceChanged, IProductPriceReported). This creates a mixed public API surface where consumers must handle both interfaces and concrete classes for similar event types. — Standardize on either interfaces or concrete classes for all event types, or ensure the public API surface is uniform. If interfaces are exposed, ensure all related types follow the same pattern. Additionally, consider if `ProductPriceReported` should also include `ShopChainId` or `ShopId` to be consistent with `ProductPriceChanged` and `ProductAddedToShop`. (signatures: ProductAddedToShop.ProductId | ProductPriceChanged.ProductId | ProductPriceReported.ProductId)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant or overlapping event types. `ProductAddedToShop` and `ProductPriceChanged` both contain `ProductId` and `ShopChainId`. While they carry different data (InitialPrice vs NewPrice/IsLowestPrice), the structural similarity suggests they might be unified or at least follow a strict naming and structural convention. The current state is acceptable but could be tighter. · ×1
  • Redundant or overlapping event types. `ProductAddedToShop` and `ProductPriceChanged` both contain `ProductId` and `ShopChainId`. While they carry different data (InitialPrice vs NewPrice/IsLowestPrice), the structural similarity suggests they might be unified or at least follow a strict naming and structural convention. The current state is acceptable but could be tighter. — Ensure that all shop-related events follow a strict naming convention (e.g., all ending in 'Event' or all being POCOs). The current mix of interfaces and classes is the primary inconsistency. (signatures: ProductAddedToShop.ShopChainId | ProductPriceChanged.ShopChainId)
D24 · Comment Value · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.notable[4].comment | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 887.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×1
  • Medium IaC: AWS-0024 tools/terraform/dev/main.tf — Point in time recovery should be enabled to protect DynamoDB table
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Products/Products.Core/Persistence/Contexts/ProductsDbContext.cs:34 — src/Products/Products.Core/Persistence/Contexts/ProductsDbContext.cs:34-48 | src/Users/Users.Core/Persistence/Contexts/UsersDbContext.cs:30-44
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5) src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:12 — User's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Recommendation — 19 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×10
  • Shell project: Baskets.Contracts src/Baskets/Baskets.Contracts/Baskets.Contracts.csproj — `Baskets.Contracts` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Products.Contracts src/Products/Products.Contracts/Products.Contracts.csproj — `Products.Contracts` contributes only 4 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Baskets.UnitTests tests/Baskets/Baskets.UnitTests/Baskets.UnitTests.csproj — `Baskets.UnitTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Users.Contracts src/Users/Users.Contracts/Users.Contracts.csproj — `Users.Contracts` contributes only 2 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Baskets.IntegrationTests tests/Baskets/Baskets.IntegrationTests/Baskets.IntegrationTests.csproj — `Baskets.IntegrationTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Products.IntegrationTests tests/Products/Products.IntegrationTests/Products.IntegrationTests.csproj — `Products.IntegrationTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Shops.IntegrationTests tests/Shops/Shops.IntegrationTests/Shops.IntegrationTests.csproj — `Shops.IntegrationTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Products.UnitTests tests/Products/Products.UnitTests/Products.UnitTests.csproj — `Products.UnitTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Shops.UnitTests tests/Shops/Shops.UnitTests/Shops.UnitTests.csproj — `Shops.UnitTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Users.UnitTests tests/Users/Users.UnitTests/Users.UnitTests.csproj — `Users.UnitTests` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 2 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Shops.Contracts` with 14 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 45 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 4.4 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · The word 'Address' is consistently misspelled as 'Adress' in the codebase. While this is a typo, it is a pervasive inconsistency in the domain model where the correct spelling should be used. · ×1
  • The word 'Address' is consistently misspelled as 'Adress' in the codebase. While this is a typo, it is a pervasive inconsistency in the domain model where the correct spelling should be used. — Rename 'Adress' to 'Address' in both the Entity and ValueObject. (symbols: IGroceryStore.Shops.Entities.Adress, IGroceryStore.Shops.ValueObjects.Adress)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 4567 LoC across 21 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • Low IaC: AWS-0025 tools/terraform/dev/main.tf — DynamoDB tables should use at rest encryption with a Customer Managed Key
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 19 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (19 orphaned of 19 analysed files in total).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).
Info — 68 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×55
  • Outdated: EventStore.Client.Grpc.Streams — EventStore.Client.Grpc.Streams 22.0.0 → 23.3.9 available.
  • Outdated: MongoDB.Driver — MongoDB.Driver 2.18.0 → 3.9.0 available.
  • Outdated: AWSSDK.DynamoDBv2 — AWSSDK.DynamoDBv2 3.7.100.22 → 4.0.100 available.
  • Outdated: AWSSDK.Extensions.NETCore.Setup — AWSSDK.Extensions.NETCore.Setup 3.7.2 → 4.0.100 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Diagnostics.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Diagnostics.EntityFrameworkCore 7.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL — Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL 7.0.0 → 10.0.2 available.
  • Outdated: Bogus — Bogus 34.0.2 → 35.6.5 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions — FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions 11.3.0 → 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: IdGen — IdGen 3.0.2 → 3.0.7 available.
  • Outdated: MassTransit — MassTransit 8.0.9-develop.663 → 9.1.2 available.
  • Outdated: MassTransit.RabbitMQ — MassTransit.RabbitMQ 8.0.9-develop.663 → 9.1.2 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Abstractions 2.2.0 → 2.3.11 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc 2.2.0 → 2.3.11 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 7.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder — Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Binder 7.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 7.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: OneOf — OneOf 3.0.223 → 3.0.271 available.
  • Outdated: Scrutor — Scrutor 4.2.0 → 7.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Serilog — Serilog 2.12.1-dev-01587 → 4.3.1 available.
  • Outdated: Amazon.Extensions.Configuration.SystemsManager — Amazon.Extensions.Configuration.SystemsManager 4.0.0 → 7.1.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 7.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Npgsql.OpenTelemetry — Npgsql.OpenTelemetry 7.0.0 → 10.0.3 available.
  • Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Jaeger — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Jaeger 1.4.0-beta.3 → 1.5.1 available.
  • Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting — OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting 1.0.0-rc9.9 → 1.16.0 available.
  • Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore 1.0.0-rc9.9 → 1.16.0 available.
  • + 30 more in this group — see findings.md.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×12
  • XML-doc coverage: Baskets.Core src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Baskets.Core.csproj — Baskets.Core: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/94).
  • XML-doc coverage: Baskets.Contracts src/Baskets/Baskets.Contracts/Baskets.Contracts.csproj — Baskets.Contracts: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: Shops.Core src/Shops/Shops.Core/Shops.Core.csproj — Shops.Core: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/128).
  • XML-doc coverage: Shops.Contracts src/Shops/Shops.Contracts/Shops.Contracts.csproj — Shops.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
  • XML-doc coverage: Products.Contracts src/Products/Products.Contracts/Products.Contracts.csproj — Products.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: Products.Core src/Products/Products.Core/Products.Core.csproj — Products.Core: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/215).
  • XML-doc coverage: Shared src/Shared/Shared/Shared.csproj — Shared: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/155).
  • XML-doc coverage: API src/API/API.csproj — API: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/11).
  • XML-doc coverage: Worker src/Worker/Worker.csproj — Worker: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
  • XML-doc coverage: Users.Core src/Users/Users.Core/Users.Core.csproj — Users.Core: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/121).
  • XML-doc coverage: Users.Contracts src/Users/Users.Contracts/Users.Contracts.csproj — Users.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • XML-doc coverage: Notifications src/Notifications/Notifications/Notifications.csproj — Notifications: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: Moq — Shared references Moq.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—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 solution0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .2artifacts/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 Vulnerabilitiestrivy—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—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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 Vulnerabilitiesosv-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—

Run 019f155a-bb31-77c1-bc88-64d7d56e4ff1 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 22 field(s) across 2 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 16 field(s)
  • User.FirstName src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Entities/User.cs:8
  • User.LastName src/Baskets/Baskets.Core/Entities/User.cs:9
  • User.FirstName src/Shops/Shops.Core/Entities/User.cs:19
  • User.LastName src/Shops/Shops.Core/Entities/User.cs:20
  • UserDto.FirstName src/Shops/Shops.Core/Repositories/Contracts/UserDto.cs:10
  • UserDto.LastName src/Shops/Shops.Core/Repositories/Contracts/UserDto.cs:11
  • UserCreated.FirstName src/Users/Users.Contracts/Events/UserCreated.cs:3
  • UserCreated.LastName src/Users/Users.Contracts/Events/UserCreated.cs:3
  • User.FirstName src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:37
  • User.LastName src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:38
  • InvalidFirstNameException.FirstName src/Users/Users.Core/Exceptions/InvalidFirstNameException.cs:8
  • InvalidLastNameException.LastName src/Users/Users.Core/Exceptions/InvalidLastNameException.cs:8
  • RegisterBody.FirstName src/Users/Users.Core/Features/Users/Register.cs:21
  • RegisterBody.LastName src/Users/Users.Core/Features/Users/Register.cs:22
  • UserReadModel.FirstName src/Users/Users.Core/ReadModels/UserReadModel.cs:2
  • UserReadModel.LastName src/Users/Users.Core/ReadModels/UserReadModel.cs:2
Email — 6 field(s)
  • User.Email src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:39
  • User.EmailConfirmed src/Users/Users.Core/Entities/User.cs:41
  • InvalidEmailException.Email src/Users/Users.Core/Exceptions/InvalidEmailException.cs:8
  • LoginWithUserAgentBody.Email src/Users/Users.Core/Features/Tokens/Login.cs:15
  • RegisterBody.Email src/Users/Users.Core/Features/Users/Register.cs:18
  • UserReadModel.Email src/Users/Users.Core/ReadModels/UserReadModel.cs:2

Issues: 4 · Warnings: 63 · Recommendations: 19 · Info: 68 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-06-2026 @ 21:48 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md