Executive summary
Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.
SaraRasoulian/WebAPI-Sample-DotNet-7 is in good overall health (58%), but at least one category below sits in Adequate-or-worse territory — most items are improvements, and the weakest category contains work to schedule, not shelve.
It is strongest in Code Health (86%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (81%) is solid too.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (42%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (63%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green)… (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: Hobby (~443 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.
Code Health
86% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
81%
Strong
Maturity
63%
Adequate · gated by D34
Readiness
42%
Adequate · gated by P2, P5
Security
78%
Adequate · gated by D30
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 42% · 47% weightMaturity 63% · 26% weightSecurity 78% · 14% weightArchitecture 81% · 8% weightCode Health 86% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 42 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 58 → ~70.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 6%Plumbing 42%Tests 35%Generated 17%
New since the last scan (2+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €210–€1,000
| Cost to rebuild | €210–€1,000 |
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 58% quality) |
| Size & shape | Hobby · 51% boilerplate · 36% straight-line · 13% branching logic |
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
2
Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
3
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
9.8
D39 · .NET / C#
IL Efficiency
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
D8 · .NET / C#
Code Coverage
10.0
D9 · .NET / C#
Test Distribution
10.0
D10 · .NET / C#
Test Quality
10.0
D11 · .NET / C#
Test Reliability
10.0
D12 · .NET / C#
Dependency Hygiene
5.7
D13 · .NET / C#
Secret Scanning
10.0
D14 · .NET / C#
License Compliance
10.0
P1 · Repo
CI/CD gates
10.0
P8 · Repo
Schema migrations
10.0
P9 · Repo
Domain vs controller coverage
10.0
At a glance — Security
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 12 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 2 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement structured logging across all services to improve observability and debugging capabilities. Next, establish a formal disaster recovery plan by codifying backups and documenting recovery procedures to ensure business continuity. Then, enhance deployment safety by adding health checks and automated rollback strategies to catch and revert bad releases. Finally, address the single deprecated and vulnerable dependency findings to maintain a clean and secure codebase.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +10.2 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +10.2 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +15.2 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +15.2 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +14.9 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +5.2 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs (2), EducationServiceTests.cs. | +4.6 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +5.0 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/dotnet.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/WebApi/Program.cs | 9.3 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| tests/Application.Tests/EducationServiceTests.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 48 of 51 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 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 51 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D39AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M3M4P1P2P4P5P8P9S1X1X2X3X4X5
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, 11 of 48 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- 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.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
6 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 1 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
Line coverage 90.0%, branch coverage 60.0%.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
20 test methods: 20 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 2 mock references across 20 tests.
Mock framework: FakeItEasy
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
16 outdated, 1 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.
Vulnerable: Npgsql
Deprecated: xunit
Outdated: Mapster
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 16 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 350 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
6 projects, 18 source files, 663 hand-written lines of code (350 production / 313 test), plus 151 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 12 inter-project edges.
Thin analysable surface across projects
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README is a thin ASP.NET Core Web API sample with a features list and a minimal get-started guide (clone repo, run docker compose up/down, update-database). It mentions technologies like Entity Framework Core, Clean Architecture, TDD, PostgreSQL, Docker, and PgAdmin4 but does not explain the project's architecture or how to modify code beyond the one-line 'add build option' instruction. The README is a single file with no accompanying architecture docs or XML documentation coverage.
XML-doc coverage: Domain src/Domain/Domain.csproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — The single README is a thin ASP.NET Core Web API sample with a features list and a minimal get-started guide (clone repo, run docker compose up/down, update-database). It mentions technologies like Entity Framework Core, Clean Architecture, TDD, PostgreSQL, Docker, and PgAdmin4 but does not explain the project's architecture or how to modify code beyond the one-line 'add build option' instruction. The README is a single file with no accompanying architecture docs or XML documentation coverage.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 127 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
0 valuable / 3 redundant across 45 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.
redundant comment tests/Application.Tests/EducationServiceTests.cs:26
What to do
- Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs (2), EducationServiceTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
100 % of calls cross a namespace and 14 % go through an interface, but 0 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Scattered collaborators
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/dotnet.yml:18
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with dotnet.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
12 vulnerable package(s): 1 critical, 7 high, 4 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: Npgsql 7.0.4
Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0
Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.6.0
What to do
- Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
High IaC: DS-0002Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
1 of 1 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/WebApi/Controllers/EducationsController.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency
0 of 29 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Only 2/6 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
- Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README claims TDD but the evidence shows no test project
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README claims TDD but the evidence shows no test project.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (ActivitySource / AddMetrics) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
- 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 migrations
Do you agree with this assessment?
P9 · Domain vs controller coverage
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
What to do
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 1/6 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×5) — EducationsController.cs:17, EducationsController.cs:31, EducationsController.cs:46, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 86% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 81% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 63% | Adequate — gated by D34 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 42% | Adequate — gated by P2, P5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 78% | Adequate — gated by D30 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 46 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 350 LoC the codebase is trivially small despite six projects, so its size alone makes boundary declarations unnecessary.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 12 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Npgsql 7.0.4
- High CVE: Azure.Identity 1.6.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.0.2
- High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0
- High CVE: System.Text.Json 7.0.0
- High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/dotnet.yml:18
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/dotnet.yml:20
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Vulnerable: Npgsql
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile
Warning — 6 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.6.0
- Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.6.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.21.0
- Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.21.0
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Deprecated: xunit
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
Recommendation — 7 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment tests/Application.Tests/EducationServiceTests.cs:26
- redundant comment src/WebApi/Program.cs:14
- redundant comment src/WebApi/Program.cs:21
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D27 · Navigability
- Scattered collaborators
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
Info — 23 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Mapster
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools
- Outdated: Npgsql
- Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL
- Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL.NodaTime
- Outdated: AspNetCore.HealthChecks.NpgSql
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi
- Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore
- Outdated: coverlet.collector
- Outdated: FakeItEasy
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: xunit
- Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: Domain src/Domain/Domain.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Application src/Application/Application.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Infrastructure src/Infrastructure/Infrastructure.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: WebApi src/WebApi/WebApi.csproj
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: FakeItEasy
- Mock framework: FakeItEasy
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 2 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list Sample.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 12 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 2 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |