PanGan21/service-bid-platform

Executive summary

PanGan21/service-bid-platform scores 36 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 23 and is rated Critical. Its CI/CD gates dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene and to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 36 to about 47.

83 findings are critical: 58 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, 15 in IaC & Container Security and ten in Keyboard semantics.

Watchdog couldn't measure 13 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Internal API Consistency and Navigability, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 7,535 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €8,900, to rebuild.

Code Health 75 Strong Architecture 80 Strong Maturity 49 Weak, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 23 ⚠ Critical, capped by Tooling, CI/CD gates, Security & performance tooling, DR & Backup and Library API & versioning Security and Compliance 74 Adequate, capped by Dependency Vulnerabilities Domain Modelling 35 Weak, capped by Rich vs anemic model, Encapsulated state and Repository granularity Accessibility 53 Adequate, capped by Keyboard semantics Performance 100 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 23 · counts for 45%Domain Modelling 35 · counts for 25%Maturity 49 · counts for 14%Accessibility 53 · counts for 8%Security and Compliance 74 · counts for 4%Code Health 75 · counts for 2%Architecture 80 · counts for 1%Performance 100 · counts for 1%

If Production Readiness rose from 23 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 36 to about 47.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 83%Tests 17%

New since the last survey: 4 findings

These 4 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026.

Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 3 findings

These 3 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED

Rebuild cost: about €8,900 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€3,000 to €15,000, for 49 to 157 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 36. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 7,535 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Resolve the 1 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.

Raises the score by about 5 points · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

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

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · ADR Quality

Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Encapsulated state

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €8,900 to build again, about 0.1 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 23 (Critical). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.

One cause behind 11 Domain Modelling findings · Common cause

11 findings in the Domain Modelling lens come from the same cause. The code models the business as objects, such as an order or a customer, and each object should guard its own rules: an order, for example, should refuse to be shipped before it has been paid. Here the objects don't do that. Other code can change an object's data directly, so it can put an order into a state the rules forbid. Some objects only hold data, while the rules that should keep that data valid sit elsewhere in the code. Because all of these findings have the same cause, fixing it once, in the business objects themselves, deals with them together.

Based on: Encapsulated state (3 findings) · Rich vs anemic model (8 findings)

What to do: Give each business object the methods that enforce its rules, such as a method for shipping an order that first checks it has been paid, and let only those methods change its data. Give each kind of identifier a type of its own, so an order number can't be used where a customer number belongs.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 1 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 5 points for low effort, because it clears the 1 Dependency Hygiene findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

57 modules, with 84 dependencies between them. Every module uses only modules listed above it, so there are no loops.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 17 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 clients.frontend.src.types.bid	2 clients.frontend.src.types.request	3 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/config	4 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/config	5 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/entity	6 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/logger	7 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/messaging	8 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/pagination	9 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/postgres	12 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/events/auction	13 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/repository/auction	14 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/repository/bid	16 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/events/bid	17 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction	18 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid	19 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/auth	20 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/events/request	21 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/repository/request	22 github.com/PanGan21/user-service/internal/repository/user	23 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/service	24 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/service	25 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/service	26 github.com/PanGan21/user-service/internal/service
1 clients.frontend.src.types.bid
2 clients.frontend.src.types.request
3 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/config
4 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/config
5 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/entity
6 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/logger
7 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/messaging
8 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/pagination
9 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/postgres
10 clients.frontend.src.services	1	1
11 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/app			1
12 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/events/auction					2		2
13 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/repository/auction					6			2	2
14 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/repository/bid					2				2
15 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/app				1
16 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/events/bid					2		2
17 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction					2				2
18 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid					2			2	2
19 github.com/PanGan21/pkg/auth					3
20 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/events/request					2		2
21 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/repository/request					4			2	2
22 github.com/PanGan21/user-service/internal/repository/user					2				2
23 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/service					8			2		2	2	2
24 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/service					4			2					2	2	2
25 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/service					4			2									2	2
26 github.com/PanGan21/user-service/internal/service					2														2
27 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/routes/events						1	1													2
28 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/routes/events/bid						2	2													2
29 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/routes/events/request						2	2													2
30 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/routes/http						1										1				2
31 github.com/PanGan21/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction					1	2														4
32 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/routes/events						1	1														1
33 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/routes/events/auction						2	2														2
34 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/routes/events/request						2	2														2
35 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/routes/http						1										1					2
36 github.com/PanGan21/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid						2															4
37 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/routes/http						1										1						1
38 github.com/PanGan21/request-service/internal/routes/http/request						2																2
39 github.com/PanGan21/user-service/internal/routes/http						1										1							1
40 github.com/PanGan21/user-service/internal/routes/http/user						2										2							2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Go Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · Go Cognitive Complexity 9.8 D3 · Go God Classes 7.4 D4 · Go Code Duplication 7.0 D17 · Go Explicit Debt 10.0 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 10.0 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 R3 · React / TS Large Files 10.0 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 9.8 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 10.0

The Bad

R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 6.3

The Ugly

X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.0

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Strong ·

The Good

D6 · Go Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D26 · Go Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Go Change Coupling 9.8 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 10.0

The Bad

D5 · Go Coupling 6.9

The Ugly

AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.0

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good

D15 · Go Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Go Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Go Naming Consistency 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.5 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 8.0

The Bad

M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0

The Ugly

D20 · Go ADR Quality 0.0 D34 · Go Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 23% · Critical · gated by R6, P1, P3, P5, P10 ·

The Good

D9 · Go Test Distribution 9.1 D11 · Go Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · Go Dependency Hygiene 8.4 D13 · Go Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · Go License Compliance 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 7.7 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 8.5

The Ugly

P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 2.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 3.4

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D30 ·

The Good

D28 · Go Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Go Static Analysis (SAST) 7.5 D43 · Go Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · Go Platform End-of-Life 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0

The Ugly

D30 · Go Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D31 · Go IaC & Container Security 4.1

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 35% · Weak · gated by DM4, DM5, DM7 ·

The Good

DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 10.0

The Ugly

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 3.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 1.0 DM7 · Repo Repository granularity 3.7

At a glance — Accessibility · 53% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

The Good

AC1 · Repo Text alternatives 10.0 AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 10.0 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 10.0

The Bad

AC3 · Repo Page structure 5.2

The Ugly

AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 1.0 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	95	High / Critical
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	25	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	13	Medium

Roadmap

Begin by resolving the stale dependency and securing entity state through private setters and immutable collections to enforce invariants. Next, establish a CI pipeline that builds and tests on every change, integrating security scanning to prevent regressions. Finally, codify disaster recovery procedures in infrastructure as code and document recovery objectives to ensure data resilience beyond simple persistence.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.	+5.4 pts	Low	Dependency Hygiene
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+2.4 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).	+4.3 pts	Medium	Encapsulated state
Resolve the 1 Inverted test pyramid finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+2.1 pts	Low	Test Distribution
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.	+3.9 pts	Medium	CI/CD gates
Run what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.	+3.9 pts	Medium	Security & performance tooling
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+3.9 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.	+3.6 pts	Medium	Rich vs anemic model

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 47 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 13% slop · 51% mixed · 36% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.0	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.8	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	1.9	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	2.3	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.4	Slop	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.7	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.7	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (31 lines × 2)
services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens)
services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go	7.0	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
demo/helper.go	7.1	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens)
services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go	7.1	Mixed	Code Duplication: Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 23 shared lines)
services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go	7.2	Mixed	Code Duplication: Edited copy of a member (26 corresponding lines)
services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go	7.2	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 83

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

Serious — 189

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

Minor — 97

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

Could not be resolved — 14

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

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 82 of 85 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 0.9 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 85 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D11D12D13D14D15D17D19D20D21D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D43D44AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX10AX2AX3AX4AX8DM11DM4DM5DM7DM8DM9M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P5P8PF3R1R10R2R3R6R7R8R9S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X21X22X23X24X25X26X28X29X3X30X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 326 of 369 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16057-da10-7e46-8d07-07f4417897ef.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.go) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D14 License Compliance — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. This repository declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), but the licence verdict published here was taken over its npm package dependencies. Nothing was read about its Go dependencies' licensing in either direction, and a clean score on this card must not be read as covering them.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 30 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 30 of the 108 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (integration-test/go.mod), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — user-migration Error context canceled bidding-service Warning context canceled zookeeper Error context canceled request-service Warning context canceled user-cache Error context canceled api-gateway Error context canceled user-service Warning context canceled auction-migration Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: user-service Warning context canceled integration Warning context canceled postgres Error context canceled kafka Error context canceled WARNING: Some service image(s) must be built from source by running: docker compose build request-service auction-service bidding-service demo user-service integration Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped.
C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Arm two tells a construction that PRODUCES a measurement from one that merely passes it along, and this repository's frontend does not compute that fact. A measurement built independently in two places would not appear above.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. Some of this repository's production types come from a frontend that does not bind comparison operands to the members they read, which arm one needs, and those types were not walked for this dimension. The counts above speak for the languages that declare it.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and this repository's Go is most of its product and is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded, no Java, Rust, Erlang, F#, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found, and this repository's Go is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations: 6 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (REDACTED, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was UpdatePendingAuction.UpdatePendingAuction at 16.

UpdatePendingAuction.UpdatePendingAuction (cognitive 16)clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:20

What to do

Bring the 1 body over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with UpdatePendingAuction.UpdatePendingAuction (cognitive 16). — Refactoring it lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.9 to about 10.0/10.
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Cognitive Complexity in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes7.4 / 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 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

5 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FunctionTooLong: Home.Home · ×5clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:14

What to do

Resolve the 5 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Home.tsx, App.tsx, UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate God Classes in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication7.0 / 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 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

57 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 7 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 12 of the 64 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population. Measured on part of this repository only: .tsx (33% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×5services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:26

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:295

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:313

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:143

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) · ×3services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:50

+ 36 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 5 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with controller.go (3), auction_postgres.go, bid_postgres.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with auction_postgres.go (2), controller.go, request_postgres.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with auction_postgres.go, request_postgres.go, controller.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Code Duplication in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling6.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 production modules (npm+Go), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 5 module(s) off the main sequence.

Off the main sequence: github.com/PanGan21/pkg/entity · ×5

What to do

Resolve the 5 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Coupling in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 21 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution9.1 / 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

36 test methods: 4 unit, 32 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The Go suite contributes 36 test case(s) across 3 `_test.go` file(s) declaring at least one — every `func Test…(t *testing.T)` that `go test` would collect, plus the suite methods a testify-style runner reaches; a table-driven case list counts once, so this is a floor. Its tier split is INFERRED from file names, paths and build constraints, not declared: 1 of those file(s) use Go's external test package (`package x_test`), which is a visibility boundary rather than a pyramid tier and was not read as one.

Inverted test pyramid

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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). Go (3 modules): measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene~~8.8~~ 8.4 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 96% · ceiling Verified

20 outdated, 0 author-deprecated direct Go module(s), 1 pinning or checksum defect(s). 23 of 23 direct requirement(s) were graded against proxy.golang.org (0 not served there, 1 publishing no tagged release to be behind). Whether any of these modules is UNMAINTAINED is not graded — proxy.golang.org publishes no maintenance status, and release age does not stand in for one. Whether any is UNUSED is not graded either: that is a source question, not a registry one. Known CVEs in this module graph are D30's question, read from REDACTED and go.sum there.

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/gin-gonic/contrib

Outdated: github.com/Masterminds/squirrel · ×20

What to do

Resolve the 1 Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate Dependency Hygiene in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 20 shipped npm package(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from registry.npmjs.org over the 20 production dependency(ies) this repository's committed lockfile resolves, across 1 product REDACTED manifest(s). Its 1 `devDependencies` declaration(s) are excluded: a consumer installs none of them. ★ DEPTH: this is the DIRECT production set the lockfile resolves, NOT the transitive closure — only one of the four lock dialects this pass reads states a full graph, so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is outside this verdict, exactly as the JVM arm's declaration-site verdict is. ★ Each licence is the one the registry publishes for the package's CURRENT release rather than for the pinned version, which is the same caveat the Hex and RubyGems arms carry. ★ COVERAGE OF THIS VERDICT: it grades this repository's npm package dependencies and nothing else. The repository also declares a Go module (REDACTED/go.sum), and the licences of those dependencies were NOT read by this pass — a gap in this engine's coverage, not a statement about them. So this result says the graded closure carries no banned licence; it does NOT say this repository's licensing is clear.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 task-comment markers across 7535 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README (service-bid-platform) gives a strong overview of the project and its microservices architecture, plus installation instructions (`docker-compose up --build` for backend, `cd clients/frontend && yarn install && yarn start` for frontend), a clear project structure breakdown, an auction-mechanics rationale, and a license. The clients/frontend/README is a directory README documenting that directory (the CRAN frontend) rather than the repository; it contains the standard Create React App boilerplate content plus eject guidance, which is consistent with its own scope. Both documents are well written and complete for their respective audiences.

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The repository's root README (service-bid-platform) gives a strong overview of the project and its microservices architecture, plus installation instructions (`docker-compose up --build` for backend, `cd clients/frontend && yarn install && yarn start` for frontend), a clear project structure breakdown, an auction-mechanics rationale, and a license. The clients/frontend/README is a directory README documenting that directory (the CRAN frontend) rather than the repository; it contains the standard Create React App boilerplate content plus eject guidance, which is consistent with its own scope. Both documents are well written and complete for their respective audiences.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 13 build units (Go, npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)7.5 / 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 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 3 medium, 10 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 2 file(s) — `scripts/init_postgres.sh` (lines 2–50), `scripts/init_redis.sh` (line 8, line 9) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

95 finding(s): 12 critical, 46 high, 31 medium, 6 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 46 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (35), REDACTED (10), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 issue-level).
Resolve the 31 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (20), REDACTED (11). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 warning-level).
Resolve the 12 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (7), REDACTED (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security4.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

25 finding(s): 0 critical, 15 high, 8 medium, 2 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 15 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (11), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 issue-level).
Resolve the 8 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2), REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

30 of 30 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go. Counted over 30 of the 108 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×30services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:1

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 30 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with controller.go (4), REDACTED (2), bid_postgres.go (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (30 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: repository.go↔routes.go 92%

Change coupling: repository.go ↔ routes.goservices/request-service/internal/repository/request/repository.go:1

What to do

Resolve the 1 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with repository.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 14 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC1 · Text alternatives10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, video has a captions track, and object/embed/canvas have a name or fallback content. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: image/media elements — img, area, input[type=image], svg, video, object, embed, canvas — across the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and dynamic-attribute elements are skipped. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is NOT read by any producer, so it contributes no element to this population; where such a frontend is present the card discloses it as an analyzer gap rather than scoring around it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC2 · Forms & labels10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it. — clients/frontend/public/index.html:2
Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. (×2) — clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuction.tsx:31, clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:85

What to do

Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler. (×10) — clients/frontend/src/common/table-row/index.tsx:12, clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:34, clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:49, …

What to do

Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 29 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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

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

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

`Auction` is an aggregate/entity with 10 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/auction.go:7
`ExtendedAuction` is an aggregate/entity with 9 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/auction.go:20
`Bid` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/bid.go:5
`Request` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/request.go:5
`PublicUser` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/user.go:3
`UserDetails` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/user.go:8
`User` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — pkg/entity/user.go:13
`UserDetails` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:177

What to do

Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

`Auction` exposes publicly writable state (Id, Title, Postcode, Info, CreatorId, Deadline, and 4 more). — pkg/entity/auction.go:7
`Bid` exposes publicly writable state (Id, Amount, CreatorId, AuctionId). — pkg/entity/bid.go:5
`Request` exposes publicly writable state (Id, Title, Postcode, Info, CreatorId, Status, and 1 more). — pkg/entity/request.go:5

What to do

Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM7 · Repository granularity3.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) and keep the persistence query handle behind the contract, so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged, and (C#/VB) repository INTERFACES whose members return a live persistence query handle (IQueryable/DbSet/IMongoQueryable) — implementations and specification evaluators are out of population by design, since composing a query internally is what an implementation is for. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

`BidRepository` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/repository.go:13
`BidService` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — services/bidding-service/internal/service/bid.go:16
`RequestRepository` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — services/request-service/internal/repository/request/repository.go:14
`RequestService` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — services/request-service/internal/service/request.go:17
`AuctionRepository` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/repository.go:12
`AuctionService` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants. — services/auction-service/internal/service/auction.go:16

What to do

Define repositories per aggregate root and keep the query handle inside them; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.5 / 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

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 14 of 15 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
Tests aren't where this ecosystem separates them — a `_test.go` file beside the code it tests is the convention, and none is present.

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.
Add `*_test.go` files beside the packages they cover — `go test` compiles only those, in-package, so the suffix IS the separation (a tests/ folder is anti-idiomatic in Go) — and run `go test ./...` in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests — searched for: `microservice`, `service-mesh`, `istio`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (REDACTED and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:3

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

What to do

Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

22/26 types (85%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.
No explicit version was found for the Go module library declared by `REDACTED`. This check read a `/vN` major-version suffix on the REDACTED module path, and a CHANGELOG/CHANGES/HISTORY/NEWS/RELEASES file with a semver heading, or release tooling (changesets, release-please, semantic-release, goreleaser, cargo-release, bump2version, standard-version, git-cliff) in the library's directory or at the repository root, or a semver release tag (or a Drupal `8.x-1.2` release tag) in the repository. A version computed where none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes. (×3) — integration-test/go.mod, REDACTED, pkg/entity/go.mod

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Go: an unexported name, or move it under `internal/`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Declare the version where the ecosystem expects it, or keep a CHANGELOG with semver release headings, and follow semver for breaking changes.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 8/9 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `pkg/httpserver`.

What to do

Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (go.opentelemetry.io/otel) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

What to do

Run what this repository's stack ships: gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:14 · clients/frontend/src/components/ClosedAuctions.tsx:13 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:14
clients/frontend/src/components/ClosedAuctions.tsx:13 · clients/frontend/src/components/InProgressAuctions.tsx:14 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — clients/frontend/src/components/ClosedAuctions.tsx:13
clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:4 · clients/frontend/src/components/OpenAuctions.tsx:3 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 62 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done. — clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:4
clients/frontend/src/components/MyAuctions.tsx:34 · clients/frontend/src/components/PendingAuctions.tsx:39 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/MyAuctions.tsx:34
clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:18 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:18 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 386 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:18
clients/frontend/src/components/MyRejectedRequests.tsx:33 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyServiceRequests.tsx:25 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/MyRejectedRequests.tsx:33
clients/frontend/src/components/NewServiceRequests.tsx:38 · clients/frontend/src/components/OpenAuctions.tsx:42 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/NewServiceRequests.tsx:38
clients/frontend/src/components/InProgressAuctions.tsx:45 · clients/frontend/src/components/OpenAuctions.tsx:42 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/InProgressAuctions.tsx:45
clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:67 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:42 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:67
clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:130 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:106 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:109 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:130
clients/frontend/src/components/MyBids.tsx:17 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyRejectedRequests.tsx:33 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyServiceRequests.tsx:25 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/MyBids.tsx:17
clients/frontend/src/components/Assignments.tsx:47 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyBids.tsx:23 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/Assignments.tsx:47
clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:73 · clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx:105 · clients/frontend/src/components/Login.tsx:83 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:73
clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:36 · clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:36
clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:20 · clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:27 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:20
clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:75 · clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:102 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:75
clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:38 · clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:53 · clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:68 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. — clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:38
clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:109 · clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:123 · clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:137 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. — clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:109
clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:10 · clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:10
clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:14 · clients/frontend/src/components/Login.tsx:11 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:14
clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:31 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:21 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:31
clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:117 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:91 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:83 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:117
clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:120 · clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:133 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:120

What to do

Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling3.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each REDACTED script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: REDACTED scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's REDACTED scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.

What to do

Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as REDACTED scripts and run them in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

Unreachable from the 2 application, 2 tooling and 1 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on `npm run build` — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (2 application, 2 tooling, 1 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make — clients/frontend/src/services/auth-header.ts
Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. (×2) — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:110, clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:117

What to do

Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)

What to do

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Only what this repository's own non-C# files could be read for was assessed — and because this repository commits the configuration that serves its own HTTP surface, that configuration could be read in full for the security response headers it sets. Nothing else in this dimension was assessed: the transport, cookie, input-validation and crypto controls are read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository’s language, so their absence here is not a finding about this repository.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `REDACTED` is committed to this repository and declares the server that serves it, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.) — REDACTED:22

What to do

Set security response headers on the surface this repository serves: an `add_header` directive per header in the nginx/Caddy/Apache config, a `_headers` / `vercel.json` / `netlify.toml` entry for a static host, or `helmet()` in the HTTP server. `Content-Security-Policy` is the one that pays for itself first — it is what contains an injected script once one reaches the page — followed by `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` and a frame policy (`X-Frame-Options: DENY`, or CSP `frame-ancestors`). Where the app is served from a build container, the header configuration belongs in the image beside the built assets, so it ships with them rather than depending on where it lands.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Other · Code Health — Whether async functions that make a cancellable request accept or pass on an AbortSignal (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Only 0/30 async functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch) accept an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, an unmounted component, a timed-out job. Take a `signal` (or an options object that carries one) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.
`createRequest` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:5
`rejectRequest` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:11
`approveRequest` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:24
`getMyRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:32
`countMyRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:42
`getOwnRejectedRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:48
`countRequestsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:56
`getRequestsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:62
`countOwnRejectedRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:74
`createBid` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:5
`getMyBids` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:9
`countMyBids` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:18
`login` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:5
`getLoggedInUserDetails` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:16
`logout` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:20
`getUserDetailsById` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:33
`getMyAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:10
`countMyAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:19
`getOpenPastDeadlineAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:23
`countOpenPastDeadlineAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:36
`getAuctionsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:42
`countAuctionsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:56
`updateWinner` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:62
`updateAuctionStatus` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:70
`getOwnAssignments` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:83
`countOwnAssignments` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:91
`rejectAuction` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:97
`getOwnRejectedAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:110
`countOwnRejectedAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:117
`updateAuctionDeadline` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`. — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:132

What to do

Thread an AbortSignal through async functions that make requests, so the work stops when its caller gives up.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether strict null checking is enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` assertion — TypeScript's `strictNullChecks` (which `strict` turns on) is what makes `string` exclude `null` and `undefined`, and the postfix `!` is the operator that silences it.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 15 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (27%; ≈30% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 40 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC1 · Text alternatives	1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5	Partial signal
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 40 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	75%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	80%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	49%	Weak — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	23%	Critical — gated by R6, P1, P3, P5, P10	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	74%	Adequate — gated by D30	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	35%	Weak — gated by DM4, DM5, DM7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Accessibility	53%	Adequate — gated by AC4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo

Not included — 53 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.

AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's Go imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's; this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — no exported interface declares behaviour
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — user-migration Error context canceled bidding-service Warning context canceled zookeeper Error context canceled request-service Warning context canceled user-cache Error context canceled api-gateway Error context canceled user-service Warning context canceled auction-migration Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: user-service Warning context canceled integration Warning context canceled postgres Error context canceled kafka Error context canceled WARNING: Some service image(s) must be built from source by running: docker compose build request-service auction-service bidding-service demo user-service integration Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D10 Test Quality — ~1594 lines of test source are present (.go) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.go), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
DM12 Ambient inputs in the domain — no domain-layer types detected — ambient-input check not applicable
DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — no domain-layer types detected — domain↔infrastructure boundary check not applicable
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (a message-bus package)
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the Go, JavaScript/TypeScript source (service entry point: pkg/httpserver/server.go:26 (http.Server{))
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a `func BenchmarkXxx(b *testing.B)` in any `_test.go` file, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Go code has 4,943 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R4 Test Coverage — 1 test file(s) reach none of 35 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a yarn lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 83 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×46

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 21 more in this group — see findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×15

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×12

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

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Click handler on a non-interactive <div> · ×9

Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:34 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:49 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:64 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:79 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:105 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:119 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:133 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:147 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.
Click handler on a non-interactive <div> clients/frontend/src/components/ProfileImageBadge.tsx:16 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.

AC4 · Keyboard semantics · Click handler on a non-interactive <tr> · ×1

Click handler on a non-interactive <tr> clients/frontend/src/common/table-row/index.tsx:12 — A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler.

Serious — 189 finding(s)

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×31

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 6 more in this group — see findings.md.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async function without AbortSignal · ×30

Async function without AbortSignal: createRequest clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:5 — `createRequest` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: rejectRequest clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:11 — `rejectRequest` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: approveRequest clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:24 — `approveRequest` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getMyRequests clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:32 — `getMyRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countMyRequests clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:42 — `countMyRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getOwnRejectedRequests clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:48 — `getOwnRejectedRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countRequestsByStatus clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:56 — `countRequestsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getRequestsByStatus clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:62 — `getRequestsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countOwnRejectedRequests clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:74 — `countOwnRejectedRequests` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: createBid clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:5 — `createBid` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getMyBids clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:9 — `getMyBids` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countMyBids clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:18 — `countMyBids` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: login clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:5 — `login` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getLoggedInUserDetails clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:16 — `getLoggedInUserDetails` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: logout clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:20 — `logout` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getUserDetailsById clients/frontend/src/services/auth.ts:33 — `getUserDetailsById` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getMyAuctions clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:10 — `getMyAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countMyAuctions clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:19 — `countMyAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getOpenPastDeadlineAuctions clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:23 — `getOpenPastDeadlineAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countOpenPastDeadlineAuctions clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:36 — `countOpenPastDeadlineAuctions` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getAuctionsByStatus clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:42 — `getAuctionsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: countAuctionsByStatus clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:56 — `countAuctionsByStatus` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: updateWinner clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:62 — `updateWinner` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: updateAuctionStatus clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:70 — `updateAuctionStatus` awaits `axios.post(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.post(url, { signal })`.
Async function without AbortSignal: getOwnAssignments clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:83 — `getOwnAssignments` awaits `axios.get(…)` but neither accepts an AbortSignal nor passes one on, so its caller cannot stop the request once it has started. Accept `{ signal }` and pass it through: `axios.get(url, { signal })`.
+ 5 more in this group — see findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

DM7 · Repository granularity · Leaky repository contract · ×6

Leaky repository contract: BidRepository services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/repository.go:13 — `BidRepository` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.
Leaky repository contract: BidService services/bidding-service/internal/service/bid.go:16 — `BidService` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.
Leaky repository contract: RequestRepository services/request-service/internal/repository/request/repository.go:14 — `RequestRepository` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.
Leaky repository contract: RequestService services/request-service/internal/service/request.go:17 — `RequestService` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.
Leaky repository contract: AuctionRepository services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/repository.go:12 — `AuctionRepository` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.
Leaky repository contract: AuctionService services/auction-service/internal/service/auction.go:16 — `AuctionService` leaks the persistence query-machinery type `Pagination` into its contract. A repository should be a persistence PORT over an aggregate ROOT — expose intention-revealing whole-aggregate operations (Save/FindByID) and keep framework types, query specifications and business logic out of its contract so callers can't bypass the aggregate's invariants.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×5

FunctionTooLong: Home.Home clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:14 — FunctionTooLong — Home runs 126 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 26 over it, 1.26× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: App.App clients/frontend/src/App.tsx:29 — FunctionTooLong — App runs 113 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 13 over it, 1.13× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: UpdateAuctionStatus.UpdateAuctionStatus clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:29 — FunctionTooLong — UpdateAuctionStatus runs 112 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 12 over it, 1.12× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: UpdateRequestStatus.UpdateRequestStatus clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:20 — FunctionTooLong — UpdateRequestStatus runs 105 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 5 over it, 1.05× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: CreateServiceRequest.CreateServiceRequest clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx:12 — FunctionTooLong — CreateServiceRequest runs 104 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 4 over it, 1.04× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×5

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:26 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:26-33 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:26-33 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:232 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:232-239 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:111-118 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go` and `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:232` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go`, `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:291 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:291-298 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:187-195 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go` and `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:291` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go`, `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:83 — services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:83-90 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:123-130 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:83` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:101 — services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:101-108 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:150-157 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×5

Off the main sequence: github.com/PanGan21/pkg/entity — github.com/PanGan21/pkg/entity: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 5 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: github.com/PanGan21/pkg/httpserver — github.com/PanGan21/pkg/httpserver: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: github.com/PanGan21/pkg/pagination — github.com/PanGan21/pkg/pagination: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: github.com/PanGan21/pkg/postgres — github.com/PanGan21/pkg/postgres: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 4 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: github.com/PanGan21/pkg/utils — github.com/PanGan21/pkg/utils: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:295 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:295-308 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:357-370 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:302 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:302-315 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:199-212 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go` and `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go`, `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:106 — services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:106-119 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:167-180 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:401 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:401-414 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:211-224 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:313 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:313-319 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:379-385 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:313` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:132 — services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:132-138 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:197-203 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:132` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:109 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:109-115 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:222-228 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go`, `services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) services/user-service/internal/repository/user/user_postgres.go:35 — services/user-service/internal/repository/user/user_postgres.go:35-41 | services/user-service/internal/repository/user/user_postgres.go:79-85 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/user-service/internal/repository/user/user_postgres.go:35` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:143 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:143-153 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:63-73 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:274 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:274-284 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:484-494 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) integration-test/helper.go:184 — integration-test/helper.go:184-194 | integration-test/helper.go:223-233 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:50 — services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:50-58 | services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go:50-58 | services/user-service/internal/app/app.go:44-52 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/user-service/internal/app/app.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:60` calls `NewEventsClient` and `services/user-service/internal/app/app.go:54` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:145 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:145-153 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:65-73 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:45-53 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:276 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:276-284 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:486-494 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:87-95 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×3

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:222 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:222-227 | services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:245-250 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:142 — services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:142-147 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:171-176 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:62 — services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:62-67 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:114-119 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:60` calls `Default` and `services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:112` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:72 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:72-89 | services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:262-280 | services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid/controller.go:111-128 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:141-168 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:15 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:15-53 | services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:15-41 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:15-44 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:17-43 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go:30 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go:30-47 | services/bidding-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go:30-47 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go` as WHOLE FILES: 94% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/routes/events/request/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) demo/helper.go:41 — demo/helper.go:41-58 | demo/helper.go:82-99 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo/helper.go:41` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:30 — services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:30-42 | services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go:30-42 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:207 — services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:207-219 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:234-246 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:207` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×2

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:25 — services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:25-34 | services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go:25-34 | services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:23-32 | services/user-service/internal/app/app.go:22-31 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:37` calls `NewSubscriber` and `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:35` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) services/auction-service/cmd/app/main.go:10 — services/auction-service/cmd/app/main.go:10-19 | services/bidding-service/cmd/app/main.go:10-19 | services/request-service/cmd/app/main.go:10-19 | services/user-service/cmd/app/main.go:10-19 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/cmd/app/main.go` and `services/bidding-service/cmd/app/main.go` as WHOLE FILES: 83% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×2

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:61 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:61-66 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:122-127 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:442-447 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:61` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:56 — services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:56-61 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:77-82 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:98-103 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:56` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:127 — services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:127-131 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:192-196 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:127` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/repository.go:20 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/repository.go:20-24 | services/auction-service/internal/service/auction.go:25-29 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/repository.go:25` calls `FindByCreatorIdAndStatus`, `CountByCreatorIdAndStatus` and `services/auction-service/internal/service/auction.go:30` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

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

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/events/auction/auction.go:20 — services/auction-service/internal/events/auction/auction.go:20-31 | services/bidding-service/internal/events/bid/bid.go:20-31 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/events/auction/auction.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/events/bid/bid.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) REDACTED:53 — REDACTED:53-64 | REDACTED:54-65 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:53` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (63 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (63 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:14 — clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:14 · clients/frontend/src/components/ClosedAuctions.tsx:13 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (63 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/ClosedAuctions.tsx:13 — clients/frontend/src/components/ClosedAuctions.tsx:13 · clients/frontend/src/components/InProgressAuctions.tsx:14 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:20 — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:20 · clients/frontend/src/services/request.ts:27 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (19 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:75 — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:75 · clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:102 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:38 — clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:38 · clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:53 · clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:68 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:109 — clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:109 · clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:123 · clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:137 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:14 — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:14 · clients/frontend/src/components/Login.tsx:11 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:31 — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:31 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:21 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.

AC3 · Page structure · Page without a main landmark · ×1

Page without a main landmark clients/frontend/public/index.html:2 — No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. This document's body is only the mount point <div id="root">, so there is no content here to wrap — render the <main> from the component mounted into it.

AC3 · Page structure · Heading level jumps from h3 to h6 · ×1

Heading level jumps from h3 to h6 clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuction.tsx:31 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.

AC3 · Page structure · Heading level jumps from h4 to h6 · ×1

Heading level jumps from h4 to h6 clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:85 — Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 29 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit · ×1

Dependency pinned to a stale untagged commit: github.com/gin-gonic/contrib — Direct dependency `github.com/gin-gonic/contrib` is required at `v0.0.0-20201101042839-6a891bf89f19` in REDACTED — a pseudo-version, which pins an UNTAGGED commit from 2020-11-01, 6 years ago. The pin itself is exact, so this is not a reproducibility defect, and it is not a claim that the module is unmaintained. What it says is that this repository tracks no RELEASE of `github.com/gin-gonic/contrib` and has not moved this requirement in 6 years: every fix the module has published since that commit — including any security fix — is absent from this build, whether the module went quiet or moved on without you. Check whether `github.com/gin-gonic/contrib` now publishes tagged releases and move the requirement to one; if it publishes none, re-pin to a current commit.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UpdatePendingAuction.UpdatePendingAuction (cognitive 16) · ×1

UpdatePendingAuction.UpdatePendingAuction (cognitive 16) clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:20 — UpdatePendingAuction.UpdatePendingAuction has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 5 (8 pts), boolean chains 7, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 3). None of this is in the body itself: all 16 points belong to 5 function items inside it that branch (handleSubmit, a function literal at line 80, a function literal at line 44, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

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

REDACTED

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: repository.go ↔ routes.go services/request-service/internal/repository/request/repository.go:1 — `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/repository.go` and `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go` change together 92% of the time (12 of the 13 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) with no explicit dependency — the edge is real but nothing declares it. Read the pair before acting: if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE — the registration is the link, and it is meant not to be an import — and the thing to add is a comment on each side naming the other, not a merge; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 12 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `e4ca6eeb` request-service: approve request; `7adbb196` request-service: add reject request endpoint; `cde1f5c7` request-service: add endpoint to count own assigned requests — run `git show` on any of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 23 shared lines) · ×1

Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 23 shared lines) services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:24 — services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:24-74 | services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go:24-74 | services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:22-67 | services/user-service/internal/app/app.go:21-66 — These 4 members are variants of one another: a block of 23 lines reported below appears in every one of them, and the pairwise near-duplicate rows they would otherwise produce are collapsed into this row. Read them as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Edited copy of a member (26 corresponding lines) · ×1

Edited copy of a member (26 corresponding lines) services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:123 — services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:123-175 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:185-219 — These two members are one piece of code written twice and then edited apart: 26 consecutive lines correspond almost exactly, broken only by small local edits. Most of that correspondence is NOT reported as duplicated blocks below — the edits cut it into fragments and only the largest of them clear the block floor, so the rows below understate it. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation into one the two call with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic (an extra return value, one transport against another), generate one from the other. Left alone, the next edit has to be made twice and the two will drift further apart.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (10 members, 50+ identical tokens) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:41 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:41-79 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:102-140 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:206-250 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:294-332 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:356-398 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:422-460 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:63-101 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:103-141 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:105-143 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:166-208 — These 10 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 10 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 10 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:142 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:142-161 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:184-203 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:273-292 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:483-502 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:62-81 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (38 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (38 lines × 3) services/auction-service/config/config.go:9 — services/auction-service/config/config.go:9-46 | services/bidding-service/config/config.go:9-46 | services/request-service/config/config.go:9-46 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/config/config.go` and `services/bidding-service/config/config.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (23–24 lines × 2) services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:124 — services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:124-147 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:186-208 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

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

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:49 — services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:49-64 | services/user-service/internal/app/app.go:48-63 — before extracting anything, compare `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go` and `services/user-service/internal/app/app.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 39 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:49` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/user-service/internal/app/app.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 4) services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:62 — services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:62-74 | services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go:62-74 | services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:55-67 | services/user-service/internal/app/app.go:54-66 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:62` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/app/app.go`, `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `services/auction-service/internal/app/app.go:60` calls `NewEventsClient` and `services/request-service/internal/app/app.go:53` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 10) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 10) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:42 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:42-53 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:103-114 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:207-218 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:297-308 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:359-370 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:423-434 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:64-75 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:104-115 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:108-119 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:169-180 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go`, `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:18 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:18-29 | services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:18-29 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:18-29 | services/user-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:20-31 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 4 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 4 times. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go`, `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:36` calls `POST`, `AuthorizeEndpoint` and `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/routes.go:35` does not — after which the two agree again for 2 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

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

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:98 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:98-106 | services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid/controller.go:137-145 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:98` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:81 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:81-89 | services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:273-280 | services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid/controller.go:120-128 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:160-168 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go` and `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 40 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:81` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid/controller.go`, `services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:122 — services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:122-129 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:148-155 | services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:177-184 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:109 — services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:109-115 | services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:190-196 | services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:301-307 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 4) services/auction-service/config/config.go:49 — services/auction-service/config/config.go:49-63 | services/bidding-service/config/config.go:49-63 | services/request-service/config/config.go:49-63 | services/user-service/config/config.go:54-68 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/config/config.go` and `services/bidding-service/config/config.go` as WHOLE FILES: 100% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 2 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 5) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:166 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:166-177 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:337-348 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:79-102 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:146-157 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:148-159 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:166` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/auction-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:403 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:403-415 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:465-476 | services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:213-225 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 6 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 81 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:403` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

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

Duplicated block (7 lines × 5) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:68 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:68-74 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:129-135 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:321-327 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:387-393 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:449-455 — all 5 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:68` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 5) services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:156 — services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:156-161 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:198-203 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:287-292 | services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:497-502 | services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:76-81 — before extracting anything, compare `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` and `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 34 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:156` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Check import visibility before settling on that home: `services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go`, `services/bidding-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go` sit under a restricted `internal` directory, which only code inside its own subtree is permitted to import from — so it is reachable from some of these sites and not from others, and being able to see the copies is not the same as being allowed to share them. The home has to be somewhere every one of these sites is permitted to import from; if there is no such place, that restriction may be exactly why the copies are separate.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1

Members sharing a duplicated core (7 members, 50+ identical tokens) demo/helper.go:35 — demo/helper.go:35-74 | demo/helper.go:76-115 | demo/helper.go:117-156 | integration-test/helper.go:138-175 | integration-test/helper.go:177-214 | integration-test/helper.go:216-253 | integration-test/helper.go:255-292 — These 7 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 7 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 7 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) REDACTED:22 — REDACTED:22-52 | REDACTED:23-53 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:22` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 3) REDACTED:18 — REDACTED:18-43 | REDACTED:75-100 | REDACTED:45-70 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `REDACTED:18` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) integration-test/helper.go:139 — integration-test/helper.go:139-159 | integration-test/helper.go:256-276 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `integration-test/helper.go:139` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

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

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) demo/helper.go:127 — demo/helper.go:127-143 | integration-test/helper.go:224-240 — `demo/helper.go` and `integration-test/helper.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo/helper.go:127` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 5) demo/helper.go:45 — demo/helper.go:45-58 | demo/helper.go:86-99 | integration-test/helper.go:146-159 | integration-test/helper.go:185-198 | integration-test/helper.go:263-276 — `demo/helper.go` and `integration-test/helper.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (1–14 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (1–14 lines × 5) demo/helper.go:61 — demo/helper.go:61-74 | demo/helper.go:102-115 | integration-test/helper.go:162-162 | integration-test/helper.go:201-201 | integration-test/helper.go:279-279 — `demo/helper.go` and `integration-test/helper.go` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 45 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo/helper.go:61` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) demo/main.go:90 — demo/main.go:90-102 | demo/main.go:104-116 | demo/main.go:118-130 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `demo/main.go:90` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) demo/helper.go:44 — demo/helper.go:44-54 | demo/helper.go:85-95 | demo/helper.go:126-136 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. The matched lines also register a scope-exit action (a `defer`-style statement) that runs when the function holding them returns: moved into a called unit it would run when THAT unit returns instead — before the caller uses what it releases — so keep the registration at the call site and extract only the work around it, or have the extracted unit hand the resource back for the caller to register.

P1 · CI/CD gates · No CI pipeline · ×1

No CI pipeline — No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.

P5 · DR & Backup · No DR/backup evidence · ×1

No DR/backup evidence — A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

R10 · Code Duplication · Wholesale file copy (62 identical lines × 2 files) · ×1

Wholesale file copy (62 identical lines × 2 files) clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:4 — clients/frontend/src/components/AssignedAuctions.tsx:4 · clients/frontend/src/components/OpenAuctions.tsx:3 — these 2 files are line-for-line copies of one another — 62 lines are identical, in the same order, in every one of them — so this is one fact about the file set, not a block to extract. An edit made to one file and not the others changes behaviour silently, which is the failure a wholesale copy guarantees. Pick one file as the single source and derive the others from it (re-export it, spread it into the local overrides each variant genuinely needs, or generate the copies at build time) — the few lines that differ between the files are exactly the part each variant should still own. Check first whether the copies are deliberately standalone deliverables (a translation file seeded from its sibling and waiting to be translated); where they are, the duplication is the design, and the honest move is to mark the seeded file as untranslated rather than to let it pass as done.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (62 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (62 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/MyAuctions.tsx:34 — clients/frontend/src/components/MyAuctions.tsx:34 · clients/frontend/src/components/PendingAuctions.tsx:39 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (60 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (60 matched lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:18 — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:18 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:18 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 386 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/MyRejectedRequests.tsx:33 — clients/frontend/src/components/MyRejectedRequests.tsx:33 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyServiceRequests.tsx:25 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (42 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (42 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/NewServiceRequests.tsx:38 — clients/frontend/src/components/NewServiceRequests.tsx:38 · clients/frontend/src/components/OpenAuctions.tsx:42 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (37 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (37 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/InProgressAuctions.tsx:45 — clients/frontend/src/components/InProgressAuctions.tsx:45 · clients/frontend/src/components/OpenAuctions.tsx:42 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:67 — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:67 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:42 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (36 lines × 3 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:130 — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:130 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:106 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:109 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (35 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (35 lines × 3 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/MyBids.tsx:17 — clients/frontend/src/components/MyBids.tsx:17 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyRejectedRequests.tsx:33 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyServiceRequests.tsx:25 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (33 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/Assignments.tsx:47 — clients/frontend/src/components/Assignments.tsx:47 · clients/frontend/src/components/MyBids.tsx:23 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (32 lines × 3 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:73 — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:73 · clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx:105 · clients/frontend/src/components/Login.tsx:83 — the 3 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (26 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:36 — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:36 · clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:10 — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:10 · clients/frontend/src/services/bid.ts:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:117 — clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:117 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:91 · clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:83 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:120 — clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:120 · clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:133 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R6 · Tooling · No lint or typecheck script · ×1

No lint or typecheck script — test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's REDACTED scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.

R7 · Dead Code · Dead file (~11 LoC) · ×1

Dead file (~11 LoC) clients/frontend/src/services/auth-header.ts — no import path from any entry point (2 application, 2 tooling, 1 test roots considered), and no other file in the scanned tree imports it — nothing in-repo names this module at all, which is the strongest form of this claim the import graph can make

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@testing-library/react' · ×1

Unused dependency '@testing-library/react' — Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@testing-library/user-event' · ×1

Unused dependency '@testing-library/user-event' — Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'react-bootstrap-icons' · ×1

Unused dependency 'react-bootstrap-icons' — Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

Minor — 77 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×30

Orphaned file services/auction-service/internal/repository/auction/auction_postgres.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/auction-service/internal/routes/http/auction/controller.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/auction-service/internal/service/auction.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/request-service/internal/routes/http/request/controller.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file integration-test/helper.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/request-service/internal/repository/request/request_postgres.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/App.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/Home.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/request-service/internal/service/request.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/UpdatePendingAuction.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateRequestStatus.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/bidding-service/internal/routes/http/bid/controller.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/bidding-service/internal/repository/bid/bid_postgres.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/Login.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/common/pagination/index.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file pkg/entity/auction.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/AdminBoard.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file services/bidding-service/internal/service/bid.go:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/Assignments.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
Orphaned file clients/frontend/src/components/PendingAuctions.tsx:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
+ 5 more in this group — see findings.md.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model · Anemic entity · ×8

Anemic entity: Auction pkg/entity/auction.go:7 — `Auction` is an aggregate/entity with 10 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: ExtendedAuction pkg/entity/auction.go:20 — `ExtendedAuction` is an aggregate/entity with 9 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Bid pkg/entity/bid.go:5 — `Bid` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Request pkg/entity/request.go:5 — `Request` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: PublicUser pkg/entity/user.go:3 — `PublicUser` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: UserDetails pkg/entity/user.go:8 — `UserDetails` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: User pkg/entity/user.go:13 — `User` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: UserDetails services/user-service/internal/routes/http/user/controller.go:177 — `UserDetails` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×6

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

DM5 · Encapsulated state · Mutable entity · ×3

Mutable entity: Auction pkg/entity/auction.go:7 — `Auction` exposes publicly writable state (Id, Title, Postcode, Info, CreatorId, Deadline, and 4 more).
Mutable entity: Bid pkg/entity/bid.go:5 — `Bid` exposes publicly writable state (Id, Amount, CreatorId, AuctionId).
Mutable entity: Request pkg/entity/request.go:5 — `Request` exposes publicly writable state (Id, Title, Postcode, Info, CreatorId, Status, and 1 more).

P10 · Library API & versioning · No explicit versioning · ×3

No explicit versioning integration-test/go.mod — No explicit version was found for the Go module library declared by `REDACTED`. This check read a `/vN` major-version suffix on the REDACTED module path, and a CHANGELOG/CHANGES/HISTORY/NEWS/RELEASES file with a semver heading, or release tooling (changesets, release-please, semantic-release, goreleaser, cargo-release, bump2version, standard-version, git-cliff) in the library's directory or at the repository root, or a semver release tag (or a Drupal `8.x-1.2` release tag) in the repository. A version computed where none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.
No explicit versioning REDACTED — No explicit version was found for the Go module library declared by `REDACTED`. This check read a `/vN` major-version suffix on the REDACTED module path, and a CHANGELOG/CHANGES/HISTORY/NEWS/RELEASES file with a semver heading, or release tooling (changesets, release-please, semantic-release, goreleaser, cargo-release, bump2version, standard-version, git-cliff) in the library's directory or at the repository root, or a semver release tag (or a Drupal `8.x-1.2` release tag) in the repository. A version computed where none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.
No explicit versioning pkg/entity/go.mod — No explicit version was found for the Go module library declared by `REDACTED`. This check read a `/vN` major-version suffix on the REDACTED module path, and a CHANGELOG/CHANGES/HISTORY/NEWS/RELEASES file with a semver heading, or release tooling (changesets, release-please, semantic-release, goreleaser, cargo-release, bump2version, standard-version, git-cliff) in the library's directory or at the repository root, or a semver release tag (or a Drupal `8.x-1.2` release tag) in the repository. A version computed where none of those can see is invisible here. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×2

REDACTED
REDACTED

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 30 of 30 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 30 separate risks. Counted over 30 of the 108 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.

D9 · Test Distribution · Inverted test pyramid · ×1

Inverted test pyramid — Only 11 % of tests are unit tests (4 unit vs 32 integration, 0 BDD); a broader unit base gives faster, more localised feedback.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

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

M3 · Folder & project structure · No src/ separation · ×1

No src/ separation — Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.

M3 · Folder & project structure · No tests/ separation · ×1

No tests/ separation — Tests aren't where this ecosystem separates them — a `_test.go` file beside the code it tests is the convention, and none is present.

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×1

README/code drift README.md:3 — README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests — searched for: `microservice`, `service-mesh`, `istio`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest and configuration files (REDACTED and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, REDACTED); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 22/26 types (85%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 8/9 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `pkg/httpserver`.

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

No SAST — No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add gosec / govulncheck (or golangci-lint) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'getOwnRejectedAuctions' · ×1

Unused export 'getOwnRejectedAuctions' clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:110 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

R7 · Dead Code · Unused export 'countOwnRejectedAuctions' · ×1

Unused export 'countOwnRejectedAuctions' clients/frontend/src/services/auction.ts:117 — Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×1

No security response headers detected REDACTED:22 — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. This is reported because `REDACTED` is committed to this repository and declares the server that serves it, so the configuration that would carry these headers is in this repository and was read in full. (−2.0 on this card.)

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×1

Duplicated predicate clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx:48 — `(error.response && error.response.data && error.response.data.message) || error.message || error.toString()` appears character-identically in 6 files — clients/frontend/src/components/CreateBid.tsx, clients/frontend/src/components/CreateServiceRequest.tsx, clients/frontend/src/components/Login.tsx, clients/frontend/src/components/UpdateAuctionStatus.tsx. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async functions that make a request accept an AbortSignal · ×1

Not all async functions that make a request accept an AbortSignal — Only 0/30 async functions that make a cancellable request (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch) accept an AbortSignal or pass one on, so a request keeps running after whatever wanted it has given up — a page navigated away from, an unmounted component, a timed-out job. Take a `signal` (or an options object that carries one) and hand it to the request; where nothing could ever cancel the call, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against how the function is used.

Minor — 20 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×20

Outdated: github.com/Masterminds/squirrel — `github.com/Masterminds/squirrel` is required at v1.5.3 in REDACTED, but v1.5.4 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/Masterminds/squirrel@v1.5.4 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-contrib/cors — `github.com/gin-contrib/cors` is required at v1.4.0 in REDACTED, but v1.7.9 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-contrib/cors@v1.7.9 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-contrib/cors — `github.com/gin-contrib/cors` is required at v1.4.0 in REDACTED, but v1.7.9 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-contrib/cors@v1.7.9 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-contrib/cors — `github.com/gin-contrib/cors` is required at v1.4.0 in REDACTED, but v1.7.9 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-contrib/cors@v1.7.9 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-contrib/cors — `github.com/gin-contrib/cors` is required at v1.4.0 in services/bidding-service/go.mod, but v1.7.9 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-contrib/cors@v1.7.9 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.8.1 in REDACTED, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.8.1 in REDACTED, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.9.0 in REDACTED, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.8.1 in pkg/pagination/go.mod, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.8.1 in REDACTED, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/gin-gonic/gin — `github.com/gin-gonic/gin` is required at v1.8.1 in services/bidding-service/go.mod, but v1.12.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/gin-gonic/gin@v1.12.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4 — `github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4` is required at v4.4.2 in REDACTED, but v4.5.2 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/golang-jwt/jwt/v4@v4.5.2 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/google/uuid — `github.com/google/uuid` is required at v1.3.0 in integration-test/go.mod, but v1.6.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/google/uuid@v1.6.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv — `github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv` is required at v1.4.1 in services/bidding-service/go.mod, but v1.5.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv@v1.5.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv — `github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv` is required at v1.4.2 in REDACTED, but v1.5.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv@v1.5.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv — `github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv` is required at v1.4.0 in REDACTED, but v1.5.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv@v1.5.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv — `github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv` is required at v1.3.0 in REDACTED, but v1.5.0 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/ilyakaznacheev/cleanenv@v1.5.0 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/jackc/pgx/v4 — `github.com/jackc/pgx/v4` is required at v4.17.2 in REDACTED, but v4.18.3 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/jackc/pgx/v4@v4.18.3 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/rs/zerolog — `github.com/rs/zerolog` is required at v1.28.0 in REDACTED, but v1.35.1 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/rs/zerolog@v1.35.1 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.
Outdated: github.com/segmentio/kafka-go — `github.com/segmentio/kafka-go` is required at v0.4.38 in REDACTED, but v0.4.51 is the module's current release — so this build is missing every fix published since, including any security fix. Run `go get github.com/segmentio/kafka-go@v0.4.51 && go mod tidy` and commit the updated REDACTED and go.sum.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-dcb9a56e47b140ebada0c07d86bf6400/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-dcb9a56e47b140ebada0c07d86bf6400/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	13	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	95	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	25	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a16057-da10-7e46-8d07-07f4417897ef · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 75% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · gated by D34, M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 23% · Critical · gated by R6, P1, P3, P5, P10 ·

At a glance — Security · 74% · Adequate · gated by D30 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 35% · Weak · gated by DM4, DM5, DM7 ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 53% · Adequate · gated by AC4 ·

At a glance — Performance · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts