Public report — configurator, published 8 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 08-08-2026 @ 00:29 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

OpenIPC/configurator

coverage not measuredbounded contexts not declared
52% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
lower third — near Weak
Architecture 86% Strong Code Health 75% Strong Security 57% Adequate Maturity 49% Weak Readiness 44% Weak

Small · 3,276 LoC · 5 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (44%)

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

43/46dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
66findings with an exact file:lineof 78 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
46/93dimensions across the health lenses3276 LoC · 5 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

OpenIPC/configurator is sound in substance but carries real gaps (52%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Architecture (86%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (75%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (44%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (49%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package (Security & performance tooling); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation).

For scale: Small (~3,276 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (86%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 75% Strong Architecture 86% Strong Maturity 49% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 44% Weak · gated by P2, P3 Security 57% Adequate · gated by D36
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 44% · 47% weightMaturity 49% · 26% weightSecurity 57% · 14% weightCode Health 75% · 8% weightArchitecture 86% · 4% weight

Raise Readiness 44 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 52 → ~58.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 28%Plumbing 21%Tests 1%Generated 50%
New since the last scan (21+)

21 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-03) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (74 lines × 4) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 7) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 22) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 8) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Configurator.vb
  • D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs
  • IC1 · Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia/Converters/DeviceTypeToYamlEnabledConverter.cs

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 — €3,000–€16,000
Cost to rebuild€3,000–€16,000 (0.1 person-years (51–166 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 52% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 23% boilerplate · 20% straight-line · 58% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€9,400 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 44% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — desktop/game, high decision density × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+4.5 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
+8.4 pts · Medium effort · Observability
3
Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
+8.4 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 44%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (3,276 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 44%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.9/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 3–6% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2 complexity, D4 duplication, D6 cohesion: averaging 6.9/10 across the code-quality signals
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.

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.

arch OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia Avalonia OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli Cli OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia->OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared Shared OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia->OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared->OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 7.2 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.3 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 8.2 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 8.4 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.7 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 8.7 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.4
The Ugly
D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 4.6 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0

At a glance — Architecture · 86% · Strong

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.4 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 7.6 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0
The Bad
AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 6.0

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · gated by M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 8.9 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.1 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 4.4 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 44% · Weak · gated by P2, P3

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5
The Ugly
P2 · Repo Observability 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 57% · Adequate · gated by D36

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 7.1
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

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 categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection2High / Critical

Roadmap

First, implement comprehensive logging using ILogger or Serilog across all services, including health checks and OpenTelemetry integration. Next, introduce static application security testing and secret scanning to improve security and performance tooling. Then, begin documenting significant architectural decisions in an ADR log to capture rationale and context. Finally, reorganize the repository structure to separate production code from tooling, and update the README to clearly explain how to run tests.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+4.5 ptsLowADR Quality
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.+8.4 ptsMediumObservability
Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.+8.4 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+6.1 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+5.7 ptsMediumFolder & project structure
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+4.9 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.+4.7 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+2.3 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 8 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 75% mixed · 25% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Configurator.vb5.5MixedCyclomatic Complexity: Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cyclomatic 85)
.github/workflows/build.yml5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs7.0MixedGod Classes: FileTooLong: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs
OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs7.4MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: OpenIPCService
OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/CommandLineParser.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: CommandLineParser.TryParse (cyclomatic 46)
OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs7.8MixedCognitive Complexity: ConfigurationParser.ExtractYamlValue (cognitive 24)
OpenIPC Configurator.vbproj9.5Near-cleanSolution Shape: Shell project: OpenIPC Configurator
OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs9.5Near-cleanComment Value: redundant comment

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 43 of 46 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 46 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D28D29D34D35D36AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 66 of 78 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fdec6-cddf-725e-9c16-8a07dc99b11e.

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.

  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity7.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click at 85.

Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cyclomatic 85)Configurator.vb:2751
Configurator.btnRead_Click (cyclomatic 50)Configurator.vb:151
CommandLineParser.TryParse (cyclomatic 46)OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/CommandLineParser.cs:12
Configurator.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 22)Configurator.vb:2358
Configurator.createPreset_Click (cyclomatic 20)Configurator.vb:3407

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cyclomatic 85) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Configurator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Configurator.btnRead_Click (cyclomatic 50) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with Configurator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 CommandLineParser.TryParse (cyclomatic 46) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CommandLineParser.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity4.6 / 10Weak✓ 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 4.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

11 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click at 324.

Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cognitive 324)Configurator.vb:2751
Configurator.btnRead_Click (cognitive 145)Configurator.vb:151
Configurator.createPreset_Click (cognitive 54)Configurator.vb:3407
CommandLineParser.TryParse (cognitive 38)OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/CommandLineParser.cs:12
ConfigurationParser.ExtractYamlValue (cognitive 24)OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs:198

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cognitive 324) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Configurator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Configurator.btnRead_Click (cognitive 145) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Configurator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Configurator.createPreset_Click (cognitive 54) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with Configurator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D3 · God Classes8.3 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: Program · ×3OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:0
FileTooLong: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs · ×2OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:0

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Configurator.vb, OpenIPCService.cs, Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Configurator.vb, Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. 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.

D4 · Code Duplication8.2 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

31 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×3Configurator.vb:542
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3Configurator.vb:1001
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:418
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2Configurator.vb:1245
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2Configurator.vb:69

+ 17 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Configurator.vb (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Configurator.vb (2), Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Program.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  4. 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.

D5 · Coupling8.4 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. 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.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)7.6 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 5 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: TabControl (LCOM4 5)Configurator.vb:2008

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Configurator.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. 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.

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

3 test methods: 3 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 3 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 9 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor8.9 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 6784 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

D18 · Solution Shape8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 projects, 23 .cs files, 6860 hand-written lines of code (6784 production / 76 test), plus 3307 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 4 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).

Shell project: OpenIPC ConfiguratorOpenIPC Configurator.vbproj
Build status unknown

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with OpenIPC Configurator.vbproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ 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

The Configurator project's documentation is clear and complete for a cross-platform configurator: the README gives a short runnable walkthrough with troubleshooting plus an image, while architecture/Docs markdown covers Linux support in depth (codebase overview, PuTTY dependency, settings state, platform coupling), and XML coverage is strong. The outline is visible throughout both docs.

XML-doc coverage: OpenIPC Configurator · ×4OpenIPC Configurator.vbproj

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The Configurator project's documentation is clear and complete for a cross-platform configurator: the README gives a short runnable walkthrough with troubleshooting plus an image, while architecture/Docs markdown covers Linux support in depth (codebase overview, PuTTY dependency, settings state, platform coupling), and XML coverage is strong. The outline is visible throughout both docs.

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ 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 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

18 valuable / 1 redundant across 70 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentOpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs:24

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.1 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×2.github/workflows/build.yml:13detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness4.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 of 9 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs.

Orphaned knowledgeOpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs
Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with OpenIPCService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM

What to do

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

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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.

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 — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX6 · Interface segregation6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `IOpenIPCService` declares 36 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IOpenIPCService.cs:6

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — DeviceTypeToYamlEnabledConverter.cs:21

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `ConvertBack` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — DeviceTypeToYamlEnabledConverter.cs:19

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 4 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.6 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
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.

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (dotnet test / npm test / pytest / a test job) was matched — the gate may be running tests, or "test" may be incidental (a path, "latest", a reporter). Make the test step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.

What to do

  • Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

  • No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.

What to do

  • Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 0/22 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×22) — OpenIPCService.cs:19, OpenIPCService.cs:74, OpenIPCService.cs:101, …

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • ~0.7 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health75%StrongSolid.
Architecture86%StrongStrongest area.
Maturity49%Weak — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness44%Weak — gated by P2, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security57%Adequate — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 48 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • 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
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 3 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×2
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:13 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@8ade135a41bc03ea155e62e844d188df1ea18608`.
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:21 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@8ade135a41bc03ea155e62e844d188df1ea18608`.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned knowledge OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
Warning — 60 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3
  • TooManyMethods: Program OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 836 lines, 66 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: OpenIPCService OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 294 lines, 42 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: Configurator Configurator.vb:0 — TooManyMethods — 3469 lines, 115 methods.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Configurator.vb:542 — Configurator.vb:542-550 | Configurator.vb:1580-1588 | Configurator.vb:1767-1775 | Configurator.vb:1947-1955
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Configurator.vb:563 — Configurator.vb:563-571 | Configurator.vb:1601-1609 | Configurator.vb:1788-1796 | Configurator.vb:1982-1990
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 4) Configurator.vb:794 — Configurator.vb:794-802 | Configurator.vb:803-811 | Configurator.vb:812-820 | Configurator.vb:821-829
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:1001 — Configurator.vb:1001-1009 | Configurator.vb:3688-3696
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:1016 — Configurator.vb:1016-1024 | Configurator.vb:3703-3711
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:103 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:103-111 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:148-156
D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×2
  • FileTooLong: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:0 — FileTooLong — 842 lines.
  • FileTooLong: ./Configurator.vb Configurator.vb:0 — FileTooLong — 3485 lines.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:418 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:418-432 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:481-495
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:1169 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:1169-1183 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:1283-1297
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:1245 — Configurator.vb:1245-1258 | Configurator.vb:2607-2620
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:571 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:571-584 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:650-663
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:69 — Configurator.vb:69-80 | Configurator.vb:155-166
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:1356 — Configurator.vb:1356-1367 | Configurator.vb:1380-1391
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:2824 — Configurator.vb:2824-2833 | Configurator.vb:2905-2914
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:3230 — Configurator.vb:3230-3239 | Configurator.vb:3242-3251
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Configurator.vb:573 — Configurator.vb:573-581 | Configurator.vb:582-590 | Configurator.vb:591-599
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Configurator.vb:651 — Configurator.vb:651-659 | Configurator.vb:660-668 | Configurator.vb:669-677
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cyclomatic 85) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cyclomatic 85) Configurator.vb:2751 — Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click has cyclomatic complexity 85 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.btnRead_Click (cyclomatic 50) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnRead_Click (cyclomatic 50) Configurator.vb:151 — Configurator.btnRead_Click has cyclomatic complexity 50 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CommandLineParser.TryParse (cyclomatic 46) · ×1
  • CommandLineParser.TryParse (cyclomatic 46) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/CommandLineParser.cs:12 — CommandLineParser.TryParse has cyclomatic complexity 46 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 22) · ×1
  • Configurator.Button1_Click (cyclomatic 22) Configurator.vb:2358 — Configurator.Button1_Click has cyclomatic complexity 22 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.createPreset_Click (cyclomatic 20) · ×1
  • Configurator.createPreset_Click (cyclomatic 20) Configurator.vb:3407 — Configurator.createPreset_Click has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.btnUP_Click (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnUP_Click (cyclomatic 19) Configurator.vb:2310 — Configurator.btnUP_Click has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.btnDOWN_Click (cyclomatic 19) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnDOWN_Click (cyclomatic 19) Configurator.vb:2334 — Configurator.btnDOWN_Click has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.btnLEFT_Click (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnLEFT_Click (cyclomatic 18) Configurator.vb:2270 — Configurator.btnLEFT_Click has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Configurator.btnRIGHT_Click (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnRIGHT_Click (cyclomatic 18) Configurator.vb:2290 — Configurator.btnRIGHT_Click has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cognitive 324) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click (cognitive 324) Configurator.vb:2751 — Configurator.btnSaveReboot_Click has cognitive complexity 324 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnRead_Click (cognitive 145) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnRead_Click (cognitive 145) Configurator.vb:151 — Configurator.btnRead_Click has cognitive complexity 145 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.createPreset_Click (cognitive 54) · ×1
  • Configurator.createPreset_Click (cognitive 54) Configurator.vb:3407 — Configurator.createPreset_Click has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CommandLineParser.TryParse (cognitive 38) · ×1
  • CommandLineParser.TryParse (cognitive 38) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/CommandLineParser.cs:12 — CommandLineParser.TryParse has cognitive complexity 38 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConfigurationParser.ExtractYamlValue (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • ConfigurationParser.ExtractYamlValue (cognitive 24) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs:198 — ConfigurationParser.ExtractYamlValue has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnGet_Click (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnGet_Click (cognitive 23) Configurator.vb:65 — Configurator.btnGet_Click has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.Button1_Click (cognitive 22) · ×1
  • Configurator.Button1_Click (cognitive 22) Configurator.vb:2358 — Configurator.Button1_Click has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnUP_Click (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnUP_Click (cognitive 18) Configurator.vb:2310 — Configurator.btnUP_Click has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnDOWN_Click (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnDOWN_Click (cognitive 18) Configurator.vb:2334 — Configurator.btnDOWN_Click has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnLEFT_Click (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnLEFT_Click (cognitive 17) Configurator.vb:2270 — Configurator.btnLEFT_Click has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · Configurator.btnRIGHT_Click (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • Configurator.btnRIGHT_Click (cognitive 17) Configurator.vb:2290 — Configurator.btnRIGHT_Click has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (74 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (74 lines × 4) Configurator.vb:170 — Configurator.vb:170-243 | Configurator.vb:1453-1465 | Configurator.vb:1636-1648 | Configurator.vb:1823-1835
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 7) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 7) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:160 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:160-179 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:238-257 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:264-283 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:290-309 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:316-335 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:342-361 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:394-413
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 3) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:187 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:187-205 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:213-231 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCService.cs:421-439
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:258 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:258-271 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:294-310 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:314-330
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:534 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:534-550 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs:615-631
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) Configurator.vb:1470 — Configurator.vb:1470-1482 | Configurator.vb:1653-1665 | Configurator.vb:1840-1852
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:1509 — Configurator.vb:1509-1521 | Configurator.vb:1692-1704
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Configurator.vb:1123 — Configurator.vb:1123-1134 | Configurator.vb:1138-1149 | Configurator.vb:1153-1164 | Configurator.vb:1168-1179
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 22) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 22) Configurator.vb:1342 — Configurator.vb:1342-1352 | Configurator.vb:1410-1420 | Configurator.vb:1430-1440 | Configurator.vb:2237-2247 | Configurator.vb:2257-2267 | Configurator.vb:2692-2702 | Configurator.vb:2712-2722 | Configurator.vb:3062-3072 | Configurator.vb:3128-3138 | Configurator.vb:3152-3162 | Configurator.vb:3192-3202 | Configurator.vb:3264-3274 | Configurator.vb:3284-3294 | Configurator.vb:3304-3314 | Configurator.vb:3324-3334 | Configurator.vb:3344-3354 | Configurator.vb:3388-3398 | Configurator.vb:3526-3536 | Configurator.vb:3649-3659 | Configurator.vb:3673-3683 | Configurator.vb:3721-3731 | Configurator.vb:3758-3768
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 8) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 8) Configurator.vb:1424 — Configurator.vb:1424-1434 | Configurator.vb:2231-2241 | Configurator.vb:2251-2261 | Configurator.vb:2646-2656 | Configurator.vb:2666-2676 | Configurator.vb:2686-2696 | Configurator.vb:2706-2716 | Configurator.vb:3520-3530
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Configurator.vb:154 — Configurator.vb:154-164 | Configurator.vb:514-523
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 6) Configurator.vb:132 — Configurator.vb:132-141 | Configurator.vb:1367-1376 | Configurator.vb:1391-1400 | Configurator.vb:3087-3096 | Configurator.vb:3217-3226 | Configurator.vb:3551-3560
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 5) Configurator.vb:2585 — Configurator.vb:2585-2594 | Configurator.vb:2761-2770 | Configurator.vb:2872-2881 | Configurator.vb:2927-2936 | Configurator.vb:3167-3176
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) Configurator.vb:758 — Configurator.vb:758-767 | Configurator.vb:1609-1617 | Configurator.vb:1796-1804
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs:79 — OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs:79-85 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs:142-148 | OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/ConfigurationParser.cs:156-162
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: TabControl (LCOM4 5) Configurator.vb:2008 — TabControl's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 9 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner (largest: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/Program.cs). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×1
  • Shell project: OpenIPC Configurator OpenIPC Configurator.vbproj — `OpenIPC Configurator` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 6784 LoC across 5 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia/ViewModels/MainWindowViewModel.cs:24 — "Configuration values" — delete - the field name already conveys this
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 4 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (5 orphaned of 9 analysed files in total).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).
Info — 6 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×4
  • XML-doc coverage: OpenIPC Configurator OpenIPC Configurator.vbproj — OpenIPC Configurator: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
  • XML-doc coverage: OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli/OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli.csproj — OpenIPCConfigurator.Cli: 11 % XML-doc coverage (5/44).
  • XML-doc coverage: OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared/OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared.csproj — OpenIPCConfigurator.Shared: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/75).
  • XML-doc coverage: OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia/OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia.csproj — OpenIPCConfigurator.Avalonia: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/69).
D18 · Solution Shape · Build status unknown · ×1
  • Build status unknown — The build did not finish within its budget on this run; structural metrics are reported, build/warning status is unknown.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .2artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019fdec6-cddf-725e-9c16-8a07dc99b11e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 3 · Warnings: 60 · Recommendations: 9 · Info: 6 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 08-08-2026 @ 00:29 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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