dgs-framework — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

This system presents an adequate standing with an overall health score of 67%. While the code is technically sound and performant, the asset carries real operational risk due to gaps in how it is documented and understood by teams. For the business, this means the system is stable today but fragile for future changes or new team members.

The value at stake is modest, with a small footprint of roughly 17,000 lines of code. Rebuilding this system would cost approximately €43,000 and take about three months for a single engineer. This low rebuild cost indicates that while the asset is not critical to core revenue generation, its current state is efficient enough to maintain rather than replace, provided we manage the knowledge gaps.

The primary risk lies in organizational maturity. With a maturity score of 56%, the system suffers from concentrated knowledge and a lack of institutional memory. This creates a bottleneck where only a few individuals understand the context behind decisions, increasing the cost of onboarding and the risk of errors during maintenance. Without clear documentation, every change requires re-discovering the original intent, slowing delivery and increasing defect rates.

A secondary concern is operational readiness. Although the architecture is robust and the code is clean, the readiness score of 69% suggests gaps in testing visibility and security posture. The lack of clear guidance on running tests means developers may hesitate to modify code, fearing unintended breakages. This uncertainty can delay feature delivery and reduce confidence in releases, indirectly impacting customer satisfaction.

What is genuinely good is the technical foundation. The code health is excellent at 97%, and performance is perfect at 100%. The architecture is highly decoupled and resilient, meaning changes rarely ripple unexpectedly. This strong base makes remediation efforts low-risk and high-leverage, as we are not fighting against technical debt but rather filling in organizational gaps.

Focus first on improving testing visibility. Adding a clear section to the root README explaining how to run the test suite is the highest-leverage action. It immediately reduces friction for developers, lowers the barrier to safe contribution, and begins to address the maturity gap. This small effort yields disproportionate benefits by empowering the team to move faster with confidence.

Code Health 97% ★ Exemplary Architecture 99% ★ Exemplary Maturity 56% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 69% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 73% Adequate · gated by D36 Performance 100% ★ Exemplary

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 56% · 46% weightReadiness 69% · 25% weightSecurity 73% · 14% weightCode Health 97% · 8% weightArchitecture 99% · 4% weightPerformance 100% · 2% weight

Raise Maturity 56 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 67 → ~74.

Code composition — where the lines go

Tests 100%

New since the last scan (9+)

9 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-09-11) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/datafetcher/ConcurrentDataFetcher.java
D4 · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoader.java
D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-spring-graphql-example-java-webflux/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/reactive/ReactiveSpringGraphQLExampleApp.java
D5 · Off the main sequence: :graphql-dgs-subscription-types
D6 · Low cohesion: DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder (LCOM4 4) graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder.kt
D11 · Flaky test: com.netflix.graphql.dgs.metrics.micrometer.MicrometerServletSmokeTest.Assert metrics for a successful async response with errors()
D22 · Inconsistent method naming for the primary execution operation across client types. Synchronous clients use `executeQuery`, while reactive clients use `reactiveExecuteQuery`. This forces developers to remember different method names based on the return type (blocking vs reactive), rather than a unified interface.
D22 · Inconsistent parameter naming for the executor in overloaded methods. The synchronous `GraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor`, while the reactive `MonoGraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor` as well, but the types differ (`RequestExecutor` vs `MonoRequestExecutor`). More critically, the synchronous interface has an overload with `requestExecutor` but the reactive one does not have a direct equivalent overload structure in the same way, leading to confusion about which executor type to pass when implementing custom clients.
D22 · Inconsistent identification of DataLoaders. `getDataLoader` takes a `Class` type, while instrumentation and options providers often rely on a `String` name. This creates a dual-identity problem for DataLoaders (by Class vs by Name), which can lead to bugs if the name generated does not match the class name or if users mix these approaches.

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings — line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €14,000–€72,000

Cost to rebuild	€14,000–€72,000 (0.1–0.5 person-years (239–759 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.9× (at 67% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€43,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 56% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. 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.

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

+9.4 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.

+10.7 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

+10.7 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 56%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (17,101 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 56%

→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity 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: Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture — module dependency matrix

Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)

128 modules, 114 dependencies. 3 dependency cycles across 13 modules, marked above the diagonal.

Showing the 40 most-connected modules; 88 more are not drawn.

Module dependency matrix. The row depends on the column; the number is how many type pairs create the dependency. A cell above the diagonal is part of a dependency cycle.
depends on →	1 dgs.DgsDataLoaderReloadController	2 dgs.apq.DgsAPQSupportProperties	3 dgs.autoconfig.DgsConfigurationProperties	4 dgs.example.shared.types	5 dgs.json	7 dgs.metrics.micrometer.DgsGraphQLMetricsProperties	8 dgs.metrics.micrometer.utils.QuerySignatureRepository	9 dgs.reactive	10 types.subscription	11 types.subscription.websockets	12 dgs.apq	14 dgs.internal.DgsSchemaProvider.Companion	15 dgs.internal.method	16 dgs.metrics.micrometer.DgsGraphQLMetricsInstrumentation	17 dgs.metrics.micrometer.utils	20 dgs.internal	21 dgs.metrics.micrometer.tagging	22 dgs.autoconfig	23 dgs.context	24 dgs	26 dgs.example.shared.context	27 dgs.reactive.internal	28 dgs.springgraphql.webmvc	34 dgs.metrics.micrometer.dataloader	36 dgs.springgraphql.webflux	37 dgs.metrics.micrometer	38 dgs.springgraphql.autoconfig.DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration	40 dgs.springgraphql.autoconfig
1 dgs.DgsDataLoaderReloadController
2 dgs.apq.DgsAPQSupportProperties
3 dgs.autoconfig.DgsConfigurationProperties
4 dgs.example.shared.types
5 dgs.json
6 dgs.metrics.DgsMetrics
7 dgs.metrics.micrometer.DgsGraphQLMetricsProperties
8 dgs.metrics.micrometer.utils.QuerySignatureRepository
9 dgs.reactive
10 types.subscription
11 types.subscription.websockets
12 dgs.apq		1
13 dgs.client					8				2
14 dgs.internal.DgsSchemaProvider.Companion																2
15 dgs.internal.method																4
16 dgs.metrics.micrometer.DgsGraphQLMetricsInstrumentation							1																			1
17 dgs.metrics.micrometer.utils							3																			2
18 types.subscription.websockets.Message										9
19 dgs.apq.DgsAPQSupportAutoConfiguration											1
20 dgs.internal	1				1							3	2						4	24
21 dgs.metrics.micrometer.tagging														4
22 dgs.autoconfig			4										1			1
23 dgs.context																3
24 dgs	1															1			1
25 dgs.context.DgsContext																1			1
26 dgs.example.shared.context																1			1
27 dgs.reactive.internal								1								1			1
28 dgs.springgraphql.webmvc																2			1									1
29 dgs.DgsExecutionResult																				1
30 dgs.example.context																			1		1
31 dgs.example.reactive.context								1													1
32 dgs.example.shared.datafetcher				3																2
33 dgs.federation																1				2
34 dgs.metrics.micrometer.dataloader																				1						1
35 dgs.springgraphql					2			1								7			1	2		1
36 dgs.springgraphql.webflux																1						1
37 dgs.metrics.micrometer						5								3	2	2	9							1
38 dgs.springgraphql.autoconfig.DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration					2			1					2			5		1	1	4		2	1		1			1
39 dgs.metrics.micrometer.DgsGraphQLMicrometerAutoConfiguration															1		1									4
40 dgs.springgraphql.autoconfig					1								2			12		2	3	6							2

Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 97% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D1 · Kotlin Cyclomatic Complexity 9.6 D2 · Kotlin Cognitive Complexity 9.0 D3 · Kotlin God Classes 9.5 D4 · Kotlin Code Duplication 9.6 D17 · Kotlin Explicit Debt 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

The Good

D5 · Kotlin Coupling 9.6 D6 · Kotlin Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.7 D26 · Kotlin Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Kotlin Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0

The Bad

D22 · Kotlin Internal API Consistency 6.0

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Kotlin Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · Kotlin Bus Factor 9.3 D19 · Kotlin Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · Kotlin Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0

The Bad

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 5.5

The Ugly

D20 · Kotlin ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 69% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

The Good

D9 · Kotlin Test Distribution 10.0 D11 · Kotlin Test Reliability 8.0 D13 · Kotlin Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Kotlin License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 9.1 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0

The Ugly

P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 1.0

At a glance — Security · 73% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Kotlin Secrets (history) 10.0 D30 · Kotlin Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D43 · Kotlin Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Kotlin Platform End-of-Life 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Kotlin Static Analysis (SAST) 4.5 D36 · Kotlin Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5 D37 · Kotlin Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

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 category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	28	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	1	Medium

Roadmap

Begin by adding a testing section to the root README to clarify how to run the test suite. Next, establish a structured repository for architecture decision records to document significant design choices and their consequences. Finally, integrate a static application security testing step into the CI pipeline to automatically fail builds on security regressions.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+9.4 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.	+10.7 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).	+10.7 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10.	+4.6 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+4.6 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Resolve the 1 Flaky test finding(s) in Test Reliability.	+1.9 pts	Low	Test Reliability
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy.	+1.2 pts	Low	Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor.	+0.8 pts	Low	Bus Factor

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 27 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 4% slop · 40% mixed · 56% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt	7.1	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cyclomatic 20)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)
graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/autoconfig/DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt	7.8	Mixed	God Classes: FileTooLong: autoconfig/DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/WebSocketGraphQLClient.kt	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult (cognitive 29)
graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/federation/DefaultDgsFederationResolver.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: DefaultDgsFederationResolver.dgsEntityFetchers (cognitive 19)
graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/utils/MultipartVariableMapper.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: MultipartVariableMapper.mapVariable (cognitive 19)
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsRestClientGraphQLClient.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsWebClientGraphQLClient.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomGraphQLClient.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2)
graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomMonoGraphQLClient.kt	8.5	Near-clean	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 24

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 34

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 15

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 48

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

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. 34 of 38 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 38 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D13D14D15D16D17D19D20D21D22D26D28D29D30D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6PF3

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

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, 54 of 73 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.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0e8f0-a2eb-71ec-a720-b3c4ae47fa33.

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.

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.java, .kt) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Dependency Hygiene ran out of its 5-minute budget before it had finished, so what it reports here is a floor rather than a complete count. The rows above are real and stand; what is not known is how many more there are. This is a limit of the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its JVM dependencies. Nothing was read about its Python dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. File-level freshness contradicts repo activity: 51 commits in the last 90 days, yet 54 of 87 significant files carry no living knowledge. Those two readings cannot both be true, so the per-file recency signal is treated as unreliable here and freshness is not scored for this run.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX2 Stateful singletons — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. The Runtime Evidence tier boots an app only via docker-compose, an Aspire AppHost, or a Dockerfile. None was found, so no live runtime a11y/egress/header evidence was collected. You can widen what we reach: add a docker-compose.yml (or an Aspire AppHost) that brings the app up with its dependencies. Watchdog then boots it in an isolated sandbox and gathers real runtime evidence — you change nothing in your pipeline (no CI step, no SDK).
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check finds retry-prone mutations by walking the repository's declared types, and NONE was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to look at. That is a limit of the analyzer's reach — it reads .NET projects — not a finding that this repository has no command handlers or message consumers.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P10 Library API & versioning — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads NuGet packaging and C# public API only, and no .NET project was loaded for this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X10 Duplicated predicate — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations: 1 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
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.
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 (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
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.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D19, D21, D22, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They 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 Complexity9.6 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher at 20.

DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cyclomatic 20)graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:420

What to do

Resolve the 1 DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cyclomatic 20) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with DgsSchemaProvider.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.0 / 10Strong✓ 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 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult at 29.

GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult (cognitive 29)graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.kt:17

DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cognitive 27)graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:420

DefaultDgsFederationResolver.dgsEntityFetchers (cognitive 19)graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/federation/DefaultDgsFederationResolver.kt:113

MultipartVariableMapper.mapVariable (cognitive 19)graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/utils/MultipartVariableMapper.kt:79

What to do

Resolve the 1 GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult (cognitive 29) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cognitive 27) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DgsSchemaProvider.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DefaultDgsFederationResolver.dgsEntityFetchers (cognitive 19) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DefaultDgsFederationResolver.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.5 / 10Stronggated by 5 serious findings✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 god class(es) detected.

ClassTooLong: DgsSchemaProvider · ×2graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:99

FileTooLong: internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt · ×2graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt

MethodTooLong: DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetchergraphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:420

What to do

Resolve the 2 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DgsSchemaProvider.kt, DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DgsSchemaProvider.kt, DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 MethodTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with DgsSchemaProvider.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.6 / 10Stronggated by 14 serious findings✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

14 duplicated block group(s) detected. 3 of the 14 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:48

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/Jackson2DgsJsonMapperAdapter.kt:54

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsRestClientGraphQLClient.kt:49

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsWebClientGraphQLClient.kt:67

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:52

+ 6 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DgsGraphQLResponse.kt (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Jackson2DgsJsonMapperAdapter.kt, ReactiveSpringGraphQLExampleApp.java. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DgsRestClientGraphQLClient.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling9.6 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

19 production modules (Gradle), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; edges a convention plugin adds from buildSrc or build-logic are not visible there; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 12 of the 19 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, or are not Gradle/Maven modules or Cargo crates).

Off the main sequence: :graphql-dgs-subscription-types

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.7 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 45 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder (LCOM4 4)graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder.kt:42

What to do

Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

66 test methods: 66 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D11 · Test Reliability8.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). Java/Kotlin (repository root, Gradle): measured (1 flaky).

Flaky test: com.netflix.graphql.dgs.metrics.micrometer.MicrometerServletSmokeTest.Assert metrics for a successful async response with errors()

What to do

Resolve the 1 Flaky test finding(s) in Test Reliability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 5 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 27 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure. A further 2 coordinate(s) are not published to Maven Central — another repository (Google's Maven hosts androidx), a SNAPSHOT, or a private artifact — so their licences are not readable from here and they are outside this verdict. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's JVM dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D16 · Bus Factor9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is graphql-dgs-spring-boot-micrometer/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/metrics/micrometer/DgsGraphQLMicrometerAutoConfiguration.kt. Counted over 87 of the 287 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 deducted task-comment markers across 17101 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

TodoCommentgraphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/WebSocketGraphQLClient.kt:96

What to do

Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with WebSocketGraphQLClient.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

This repository's READMEs are mostly clear and complete for their respective directories. The root README (dgs-framework/README.md) gives an overview of the DGS Framework (Spring Boot GraphQL server framework), features, a CI badge, version compatibility table, and links to the getting started guide and contributor guide, all present in the body. It also mentions the Bill of Materials (BOM) modules graphql-dgs-platform-dependencies/README.md and graphql-dgs-spring-graphql-example-java/WebFlux/README.md as documentation for their directories rather than the root repo. The directory READMEs are each under 60 words, so they all qualify as short focused documents with clear headings.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — This repository's READMEs are mostly clear and complete for their respective directories. The root README (dgs-framework/README.md) gives an overview of the DGS Framework (Spring Boot GraphQL server framework), features, a CI badge, version compatibility table, and links to the getting started guide and contributor guide, all present in the body. It also mentions the Bill of Materials (BOM) modules graphql-dgs-platform-dependencies/README.md and graphql-dgs-spring-graphql-example-java/WebFlux/README.md as documentation for their directories rather than the root repo. The directory READMEs are each under 60 words, so they all qualify as short focused documents with clear headings.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ 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 Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyAdequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 135 exposed types.

Inconsistent method naming for the primary execution operation across client types. Synchronous clients use `executeQuery`, while reactive clients use `reactiveExecuteQuery`. This forces developers to remember different method names based on the return type (blocking vs reactive), rather than a unified interface.

Inconsistent parameter naming for the executor in overloaded methods. The synchronous `GraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor`, while the reactive `MonoGraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor` as well, but the types differ (`RequestExecutor` vs `MonoRequestExecutor`). More critically, the synchronous interface has an overload with `requestExecutor` but the reactive one does not have a direct equivalent overload structure in the same way, leading to confusion about which executor type to pass when implementing custom clients.

Inconsistent identification of DataLoaders. `getDataLoader` takes a `Class` type, while instrumentation and options providers often rely on a `String` name. This creates a dual-identity problem for DataLoaders (by Class vs by Name), which can lead to bugs if the name generated does not match the class name or if users mix these approaches.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent method naming for the primary execution operation across… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent parameter naming for the executor in overloaded methods.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent identification of DataLoaders. `getDataLoader` takes a… 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 12 build units (Gradle) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. 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 4.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

28 finding(s): 0 critical, 23 high, 1 medium, 4 low. 19 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `gradlew` (line 74, line 178), `graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/resources/static/static/js/2.e650732d.chunk.js` — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

REDACTED

+ 2 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 19 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

No known-vulnerable dependencies in any ecosystem this repository declares.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ 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 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is present but lists no reporting contact.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 2 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)5.5 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

45 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

What to do

Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 22 of 26 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 7/10 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `graphql-dgs-example-jackson-both`, `graphql-dgs-example-jackson2-only`, `graphql-dgs-example-jackson3-only`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6753 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	97%	Exemplary	Solid.
Architecture	99%	Exemplary	Solid.
Maturity	56%	Adequate — gated by M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	69%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	73%	Adequate — gated by D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 77 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 — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC2 Forms & labels — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC3 Page structure — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC5 ARIA correctness — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AC7 A11y enforcement — Frontend below the scale floor (17 DOM element(s) < 25) — too little surface to assess accessibility.
AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX2 Stateful singletons — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~17889 lines of test source are present (.java, .kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene incomplete (time budget)
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (65 value object(s))
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
ED5 Idempotency — This check finds retry-prone mutations (command handlers and message/event consumers) by walking the repository's declared types, and none was loaded here, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C# syntax, and none was loaded for this repository. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P10 Library API & versioning — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM, Python source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
PF2 Allocation hygiene — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X10 Duplicated predicate — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X23 Unguarded diagnostic materialisation — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X28 Index access outside its own emptiness guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X7 Silent fallback defaults — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

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.

Critical — 24 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D11 · Test Reliability · Flaky test · ×1

Flaky test: com.netflix.graphql.dgs.metrics.micrometer.MicrometerServletSmokeTest.Assert metrics for a successful async response with errors() — Passed 2×, failed 1× across repeated runs.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 34 finding(s)

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:48 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:48-56 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphQLResponse.kt:109-118 — before extracting anything, compare `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt` and `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphQLResponse.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:61 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:61-69 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphQLResponse.kt:126-135 — before extracting anything, compare `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt` and `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphQLResponse.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:61` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:75 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:75-83 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphQLResponse.kt:144-153 — before extracting anything, compare `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt` and `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphQLResponse.kt` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 30 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphQLResponse.kt:75` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2

ClassTooLong: DgsSchemaProvider graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:99 — ClassTooLong — 634 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 23 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 234 over it, 1.59× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
ClassTooLong: DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/autoconfig/DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt:177 — ClassTooLong — 499 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 30 methods. The bar is 400 significant lines; this is 99 over it, 1.25× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2

FileTooLong: internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt — FileTooLong — 714 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 89% of them inside a single declaration: DgsSchemaProvider (99-1011). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 214 over it, 1.43× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.
FileTooLong: autoconfig/DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/autoconfig/DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration.kt — FileTooLong — 664 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), about 75% of them inside a single declaration: DgsSpringGraphQLAutoConfiguration (177-873). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 164 over it, 1.33× the bar. Moving the declarations that sit BESIDE it into sibling files will not shorten this file. Extract from INSIDE that declaration instead: lift each cohesive group of its body — the parts that share the same inputs and are named together — into its own unit in a sibling file, and have the original call them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/Jackson2DgsJsonMapperAdapter.kt:54 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/Jackson2DgsJsonMapperAdapter.kt:54-59 | graphql-dgs-jackson2/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/jackson2/Jackson2DgsJsonMapper.kt:60-65 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-spring-graphql-example-java-webflux/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/reactive/ReactiveSpringGraphQLExampleApp.java:47 — graphql-dgs-spring-graphql-example-java-webflux/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/reactive/ReactiveSpringGraphQLExampleApp.java:47-52 | graphql-dgs-spring-graphql-example-java/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/SpringGraphQLExampleApp.java:48-53 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cyclomatic 20) graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:420 — DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×1

TodoComment graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/WebSocketGraphQLClient.kt:96 — // TODO: This functionality can be achieved more easily with Mono::cacheInvalidateIf, which is available in the — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult (cognitive 29) · ×1

GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult (cognitive 29) graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.kt:17 — GraphQLJavaErrorInstrumentation.instrumentExecutionResult has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 10 (27 pts), boolean chains 2 (nesting depth added 17). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: this score is depth rather than breadth — most of its points come from checks stacked inside one another, so the work sits several levels in. Invert each enclosing check into an early exit (a return, or the language's equivalent) so the happy path stays at one level, and where a level cannot be exited early, lift the block it encloses into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cognitive 27) · ×1

DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher (cognitive 27) graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:420 — DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 14 (23 pts), boolean chains 2, error handling 1, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 9). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DefaultDgsFederationResolver.dgsEntityFetchers (cognitive 19) · ×1

DefaultDgsFederationResolver.dgsEntityFetchers (cognitive 19) graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/federation/DefaultDgsFederationResolver.kt:113 — DefaultDgsFederationResolver.dgsEntityFetchers has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 11 (14 pts), loops 1 (3 pts), match/switch 2 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · MultipartVariableMapper.mapVariable (cognitive 19) · ×1

MultipartVariableMapper.mapVariable (cognitive 19) graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/utils/MultipartVariableMapper.kt:79 — MultipartVariableMapper.mapVariable has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 7 (18 pts), loops 1 (nesting depth added 11). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent method naming for the primary execution operation across client types. Synchronous clients use `executeQuery`, while reactive clients use `reactiveExecuteQuery`. This forces developers to remember different method names based on the return type (blocking vs reactive), rather than a unified interface. · ×1

Inconsistent method naming for the primary execution operation across client types. Synchronous clients use `executeQuery`, while reactive clients use `reactiveExecuteQuery`. This forces developers to remember different method names based on the return type (blocking vs reactive), rather than a unified interface. — Standardize on a single method name (e.g., `executeQuery`) across both synchronous and reactive clients, or provide a common interface that abstracts this difference. If `reactiveExecuteQuery` is kept for clarity, ensure the synchronous counterpart is also explicitly named `reactiveExecuteQuery` (which it isn't) or vice versa. (signatures: DgsGraphQLClient.executeQuery(query: String): DgsGraphQLResponse | DgsMonoGraphQLClient.reactiveExecuteQuery(query: String) | DgsReactiveGraphQLClient.reactiveExecuteQuery(query: String, variables: Map<String, Any>))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent parameter naming for the executor in overloaded methods. The synchronous `GraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor`, while the reactive `MonoGraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor` as well, but the types differ (`RequestExecutor` vs `MonoRequestExecutor`). More critically, the synchronous interface has an overload with `requestExecutor` but the reactive one does not have a direct equivalent overload structure in the same way, leading to confusion about which executor type to pass when implementing custom clients. · ×1

Inconsistent parameter naming for the executor in overloaded methods. The synchronous `GraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor`, while the reactive `MonoGraphQLClient` interface uses `requestExecutor` as well, but the types differ (`RequestExecutor` vs `MonoRequestExecutor`). More critically, the synchronous interface has an overload with `requestExecutor` but the reactive one does not have a direct equivalent overload structure in the same way, leading to confusion about which executor type to pass when implementing custom clients. — Ensure that if a common interface is intended, the parameter names and types are aligned. If they are distinct interfaces, document the distinction clearly. The current surface shows `requestExecutor` in both, but the types are different, which is acceptable, but the lack of a unified `execute` method name (see above) compounds the confusion. (signatures: GraphQLClient.executeQuery(query: String, variables: Map<String, Any>, requestExecutor: RequestExecutor): GraphQLResponse | MonoGraphQLClient.reactiveExecuteQuery(query: String, variables: Map<String, Any>, requestExecutor: MonoRequestExecutor))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent identification of DataLoaders. `getDataLoader` takes a `Class` type, while instrumentation and options providers often rely on a `String` name. This creates a dual-identity problem for DataLoaders (by Class vs by Name), which can lead to bugs if the name generated does not match the class name or if users mix these approaches. · ×1

Inconsistent identification of DataLoaders. `getDataLoader` takes a `Class` type, while instrumentation and options providers often rely on a `String` name. This creates a dual-identity problem for DataLoaders (by Class vs by Name), which can lead to bugs if the name generated does not match the class name or if users mix these approaches. — Standardize on one primary identifier for DataLoaders in the public API. If both are needed, provide a clear mapping utility or ensure the `Class`-based lookup internally resolves to the canonical name consistently. (signatures: DgsDataFetchingEnvironment.getDataLoader(loaderClass: Class): Any | DgsDataLoaderInstrumentation.onDispatch(name: String, keys: List<Any>, batchLoaderEnvironment: BatchLoaderEnvironment))

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · MethodTooLong · ×1

MethodTooLong: DgsSchemaProvider.registerDataFetcher graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/internal/DgsSchemaProvider.kt:420 — MethodTooLong — registerDataFetcher runs 109 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 9 over it, 1.09× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsRestClientGraphQLClient.kt:49 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsRestClientGraphQLClient.kt:49-73 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/RestClientGraphQLClient.kt:96-120 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsWebClientGraphQLClient.kt:67 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsWebClientGraphQLClient.kt:67-83 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/WebClientGraphQLClient.kt:130-146 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:52 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:52-63 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:65-76 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:52` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–11 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7–11 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:67 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:67-73 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:80-90 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:67` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomGraphQLClient.kt:62 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomGraphQLClient.kt:62-71 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsCustomGraphQLClient.kt:46-54 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomMonoGraphQLClient.kt:63 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomMonoGraphQLClient.kt:63-70 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsCustomMonoGraphQLClient.kt:47-54 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/CustomMonoGraphQLClient.kt:63` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 7) graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:76 — graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsGraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:76-80 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsRestClientGraphQLClient.kt:79-83 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/DgsWebClientGraphQLClient.kt:110-114 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/GraphqlSSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:93-97 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/RestClientGraphQLClient.kt:126-130 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/SSESubscriptionGraphQLClient.kt:77-81 | graphql-dgs-client/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/client/WebClientGraphQLClient.kt:189-193 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 7 call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/datafetcher/ConcurrentDataFetcher.java:32 — graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/datafetcher/ConcurrentDataFetcher.java:32-47 | graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/datafetcher/ConcurrentDataFetcher.java:52-67 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (35 lines × 2) graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoader.java:1 — graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoader.java:1-35 | graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoaderWithDispatchPredicate.java:1-40 — before extracting anything, compare `graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoader.java` and `graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoaderWithDispatchPredicate.java` as WHOLE FILES: 90% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `graphql-dgs-example-shared/src/main/java/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/example/shared/dataLoader/MessageDataLoader.java:1` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: :graphql-dgs-subscription-types — :graphql-dgs-subscription-types: abstractness 0.07, instability 0.00, distance 0.93 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1

Low cohesion: DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder (LCOM4 4) graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder.kt:42 — DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 45 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

Minor — 15 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: graphql-dgs-spring-boot-micrometer/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/metrics/micrometer/DgsGraphQLMicrometerAutoConfiguration.kt, graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/DgsGraphQLSourceBuilder.kt, graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/apq/DgsAPQSupportAutoConfiguration.kt, graphql-dgs/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/exceptions/DefaultDataFetcherExceptionHandler.kt, graphql-dgs-spring-graphql/src/main/kotlin/com/netflix/graphql/dgs/springgraphql/webmvc/DgsWebMvcGraphQLInterceptor.kt. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.

D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1

Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 1 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (6 single-owned of 87 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 87 of the 287 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #2 (1 file(s)) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1

No architecture diagram/doc — No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 7/10 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `graphql-dgs-example-jackson-both`, `graphql-dgs-example-jackson2-only`, `graphql-dgs-example-jackson3-only`.

P3 · Security & performance tooling · No SAST · ×1

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 6753 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-0af6d7dcedf54a9aa23806a34be2503d/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-0af6d7dcedf54a9aa23806a34be2503d/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	28	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a0e8f0-a2eb-71ec-a720-b3c4ae47fa33 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Netflix/dgs-Framework

Findings by grade

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 97% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 99% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 56% · Adequate · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 69% · Adequate · gated by P3 ·

At a glance — Security · 73% · Adequate · gated by D36 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts