Public report — EventFly, published 29 Jul 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 29-07-2026 @ 19:31 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Sporteco/EventFly

dormant codebasebounded contexts not declared
50% Provisional
Architecture 91% Exemplary Event-Driven 86% Exemplary Security 60% Adequate Maturity 57% Adequate Domain Modelling 56% Adequate Code Health 47% Adequate Readiness 45% Adequate

Small · 18,027 LoC · 22 projects · rebuild ~0.2 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (45%)

Build did not compile — scores are provisional
The analysed solution did not compile (2 build error(s)). Dimensions that depend on the compiler — complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface — ran on incomplete models, so the scores below are provisional. Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade. First errors: CS0023: Operator '.' cannot be applied to operand of type 'void'

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

57/60dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
42findings with an exact file:lineof 116 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
60/107dimensions across the health lenses18027 LoC · 22 projects — wide & deep

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.

Sporteco/EventFly carries serious risk (50%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (91%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Event-Driven (86%) 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 (45%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Code Health (47%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Make retry-prone mutations idempotent (Idempotency); Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate (Security & performance tooling); 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene (Dependency Hygiene).

For scale: Small (~18,027 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (91%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 47% Adequate · gated by D18, X1, X5 Architecture 91% ★ Exemplary Maturity 57% Adequate · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 45% Adequate · gated by D12, ED5 Security 60% Adequate · gated by D30 Domain Modelling 56% Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4 Event-Driven 86% ★ Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 45% · 46% weightCode Health 47% · 25% weightDomain Modelling 56% · 14% weightMaturity 57% · 8% weightSecurity 60% · 4% weightEvent-Driven 86% · 2% weightArchitecture 91% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 45 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 50 → ~54.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 12%Plumbing 66%Tests 22%
New since the last scan (9+)

9 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs
  • D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs
  • D8 · Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
  • D17 · TodoComment src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/DefaultCommandValidator.cs
  • D17 · TodoComment src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/DefaultCommandValidator.cs
  • D17 · NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props
  • D35 · Change coupling: IFixtureArranger.cs ↔ IFixtureAsserter.cs src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/IFixtureArranger.cs

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €9,700–€48,000
Cost to rebuild€9,700–€48,000 (0.1–0.3 person-years (161–504 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityVery high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 50% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 64% boilerplate · 20% straight-line · 16% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€29,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 45% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.8) — service/app, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+4.6 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
2
Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+3.6 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
3
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFly.Clustering.csproj, Directory.Build.props.
+2.9 pts · Low effort · Explicit Debt

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move: fix the build · Critical · Leverage
The solution doesn't compile, so every Roslyn-derived dimension (complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface) ran on incomplete models and is PROVISIONAL. Fixing the build is the single change that makes the rest of the report trustworthy — do it first. The compiler reported: CS0023: Operator '.' cannot be applied to operand of type 'void'.
Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: CS0023: Operator '.' cannot be applied to operand of type 'void'.
→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.2 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 45%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.2 person-years rebuild (18,027 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 45%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause
7 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Evidence: DM5 setters: 0 · DM4 anemic: 5 · DM2 primitive ids: 2
→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

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

arch Host Host ctx:Demo Demo Application · Domain · Infrastructure Host->ctx:Demo Tests Tests Web Web Web->ctx:Demo ctx:EventFly EventFly Application · Domain · Infrastructure · Web Web->ctx:EventFly Examples.Api Examples.Api Examples.JobApplication Examples.JobApplication EventFly.Tests EventFly.Tests ctx:Abstractions Abstractions Abstractions ctx:Demo->ctx:Abstractions ctx:Demo->ctx:EventFly ctx:Extensions Extensions Extensions ctx:Demo->ctx:Extensions ctx:Storages.EntityFramework Storages.EntityFramework EntityFramework ctx:Demo->ctx:Storages.EntityFramework ctx:EventFly.Abstractions EventFly.Abstractions Abstractions ctx:Abstractions->ctx:EventFly.Abstractions ctx:Abstractions->ctx:Extensions ctx:EventFly->ctx:EventFly.Abstractions ctx:Clustering Clustering Clustering ctx:Clustering->ctx:EventFly.Abstractions ctx:Extensions->ctx:EventFly.Abstractions ctx:ExternalEventProvider ExternalEventProvider ExternalEventProvider ctx:ExternalEventProvider->ctx:EventFly ctx:ExternalEventPublisher ExternalEventPublisher ExternalEventPublisher ctx:ExternalEventPublisher->ctx:EventFly ctx:RabbitMqEventProvider RabbitMqEventProvider RabbitMqEventProvider ctx:RabbitMqEventProvider->ctx:EventFly ctx:RabbitMqEventPublisher RabbitMqEventPublisher RabbitMqEventPublisher ctx:RabbitMqEventPublisher->ctx:EventFly.Abstractions ctx:Storages.EntityFramework->ctx:EventFly __more__ +1 more contexts

At a glance — Code Health · 47% · Adequate · gated by D18, X1, X5

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.4 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.8 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.7 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.6 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 9.9 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 7.7 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0
The Bad
X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.5 X4 · Repo Structured logging 4.8
The Ugly
D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 3.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 3.8 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 91% · Exemplary

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.2 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 9.1 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.7 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Bad
D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 6.2

At a glance — Maturity · 57% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 8.4 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Ugly
D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 2.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 45% · Adequate · gated by D12, ED5

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.8 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 6.0
The Bad
P2 · Repo Observability 4.9 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0
The Ugly
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 2.2 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 3.0

At a glance — Security · 60% · Adequate · gated by D30

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 9.5 C2 · Repo Access Controls 7.0
The Bad
S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 5.0
The Ugly
D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 56% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM4

The Good
DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 7.9 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0
The Ugly
DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 3.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 86% · Exemplary

The Good
ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 7.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.5

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components25High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection1Medium

Roadmap

First, make all retry-prone mutations idempotent by adding deduplication checks or versioned writes to prevent data duplication. Next, enable automated dependency scanning and update tools to improve security and performance tooling. Then, resolve the seven deprecated dependencies to maintain hygiene and reduce risk. After that, extend structured logging across all service-like projects to ensure full production diagnosability. Finally, implement a versioned schema migration strategy to manage database changes explicitly.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+4.6 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+3.6 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFly.Clustering.csproj, Directory.Build.props.+2.9 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AggregateTests.cs.+2.8 ptsLowTest Quality
Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.+4.6 ptsMediumIdempotency
Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.+4.6 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+4.5 ptsMediumObservability
Adopt a versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core: dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.+4.3 ptsMediumSchema migrations

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 25 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 4% mixed · 96% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs5.9MixedGod Classes: TooManyMethods: EventSourcedAggregateRoot
src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs6.0Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs6.2Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions (empty test): TestDistinctCommand_AfterTwoHandles_CommandFails
src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs6.9Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/DefaultCommandValidator.cs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphSchemaInternal.cs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
test/EventFly.Tests/Application/Jobs/ScheduledJobsTests.cs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj7.6Near-cleanExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Directory.Build.props7.6Near-cleanExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/QueryParametersHelper.cs7.8Near-cleanCognitive Complexity: QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments (cognitive 23)
src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs7.8Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2)
examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/BaseController.cs7.9Near-cleanStatic Analysis (SAST): Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization
src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobManager.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Permissions/PermissionCommandValidator.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/BuilderExtensions.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
test/EventFly.Tests/Abstractions/Serialization/SerializationTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
test/EventFly.Tests/TestFixture/AggregateFixtureTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (17 lines × 2)
src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)

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. 57 of 60 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 60 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C2DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8ED1ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 42 of 116 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019faf5c-be10-7bfd-aed8-cde19abc5204.

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.

  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (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.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • 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.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (4): D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments at 23.

QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments (cognitive 23)src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/QueryParametersHelper.cs:40
QueryParametersHelper.GetFields (cognitive 23)src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/QueryParametersHelper.cs:145

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D3 · God Classes9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: EventSourcedAggregateRootsrc/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

11 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:53
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:351
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:470
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:78
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2)src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:103

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

3 of 44 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: ContextDefinition (LCOM4 11) · ×3src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Definitions/ContextDefinition.cs:22

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

131 test methods: 131 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 131 tests.

No assertions (empty test): TestDistinctCommand_AfterTwoHandles_CommandFailstest/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:309

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D12 · Dependency Hygiene2.2 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

27 outdated, 3 vulnerable, 7 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: Microsoft.AspNetCore.App · ×3
Deprecated: xunit · ×7
Outdated: Akka.Cluster.TestKit · ×27

What to do

  1. Resolve the 7 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 23 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

18 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 18027 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.6.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×2src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj:27
TodoComment · ×12src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs:25
CommentedOutCode · ×3src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/BuilderExtensions.cs:66
BarePragmaDisablesrc/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphSchemaInternal.cs:8

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

22 projects, 498 source files, 23221 hand-written lines of code (18027 production / 5194 test), 101 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build failed
Thin analysable surface across projects

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

2 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The class name `ComittedEventTests` contains a typo ('Comitted' instead of 'Committed'). This typo is also present in the method name `InstantiatingComittedEvent...`. This is a spelling inconsistency/typo in the codebase.
The test class `ComittedEventTests` (typo) tests `DomainEvent`. The concept of a 'Committed Event' is central, but the typo in the test class name creates a visual inconsistency with the correct spelling used in the domain model (`DomainEvent`, `ICommittedEvent` in other places like `EventFly.Aggregates.ICommittedEvent` implied by context).

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The class name `ComittedEventTests` contains a typo ('Comitted' instead… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 The test class `ComittedEventTests` (typo) tests `DomainEvent`. The… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D24 · Comment Value / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 valuable / 2 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×2examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/Program.cs:21

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs, PrintJobId.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

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

D26 · Project Cohesion9.1 / 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 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 22 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split EventFly.Domain

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

95 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 74 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 6.2/10. — 95 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 74 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

Medium: missing-or-broken-authorizationexamples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/BaseController.cs:31detected by semgrep finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

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

25 vulnerable package(s): 5 critical, 9 high, 11 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 · ×9detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Critical CVE: Akka.Cluster 1.4.5 · ×5detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: Akka 1.4.5 · ×11detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 11 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 9 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).

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

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

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

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

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

77 of 77 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs.

Largest orphaned file · ×2src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with AggregateSaga.cs, EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
  2. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: IFixtureArranger.cs↔IFixtureAsserter.cs 53%

Change coupling: IFixtureArranger.cs ↔ IFixtureAsserter.cssrc/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/IFixtureArranger.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

AX10 · Code composition7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX8 · Test 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.

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

C2 · Access Controls7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

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

  • Authorization IS enforced here (via [Authorize]/guards) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is NAMED policies (AddAuthorization/AddPolicy, RequireRole/RequireClaim, RequireAuthorization): the access rules are implicit rather than named and testable. Recommendation, not a defect — name the rules so they're reviewable.

What to do

  • Add policy-based authorization — name the access rules (AddAuthorization(o => o.AddPolicy(…))) and apply them via [Authorize(Policy = …)] or RequireAuthorization.
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

  • `EventSourcedAggregateRoot.PersistenceId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:58
  • `AggregateSaga.PersistenceId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — AggregateSaga.cs:96

What to do

  • Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
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.

  • `Project` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Project.cs:6
  • `AggregateRoot` 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. — AggregateRoot.cs:19
  • `EventSourcedAggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:51
  • `IAggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — IAggregateRoot.cs:42
  • `AggregateSaga` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — AggregateSaga.cs:50

What to do

  • Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

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

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary7.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

  • `ProjectState` (domain layer) uses `EF Core` inside a method body — infrastructure reached without it appearing in any signature. — ProjectStateInMemory.cs:30

What to do

  • Invert domain→infrastructure dependencies: declare interfaces in the domain, implement them in infrastructure (Dependency Inversion).
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.

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

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

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

ED3 · Event naming7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

  • `IDomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. (×2) — IDomainEvent.cs:46, IDomainEvent.cs:51
  • `DomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainEvent.cs:34

What to do

  • Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `JobScheduler.Emit` writes to the database while `JobScheduler.Execute` publishes to the message bus in the same command-handling flow, with no outbox referenced on either path. Splitting the persist and the publish across sibling methods (or two collaborating actors) doesn't make them atomic — a crash between the two either loses the message or emits a phantom event. Use the transactional outbox pattern so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — JobScheduler.cs:234

What to do

  • Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ED5 · Idempotency3.0 / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

  • `Subscribers.ExternalEventPublisher.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (an event publish) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — ExternalEventPublisher.cs:24

What to do

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

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×10) — Predicate.cs:24, CustomMethodInfo.cs:62, UsersQueryHandler.cs:55, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `Load` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — AggregatedDefinitions.cs:26, AggregatedDefinitions.cs:101
  • `EmptyStep` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — BddTestHelper.cs:28
  • `Invoke` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — CustomMethodInfo.cs:55
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×8) — BddTestHelper.cs:117, BuilderExtensions.cs:79, BuilderExtensions.cs:97, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 22 of 22 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do

  • Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability4.9 / 10Adequate✓ 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 4/14 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

What to do

  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

P8 · Schema migrations6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.

What to do

  • Adopt a versioned schema-migration mechanism (with EF Core: dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
S1 · Web-Security Posture5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • MD5/SHA1 is broken for security purposes (collision-vulnerable). Use SHA-256+ for content integrity; for password storage, use a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt). — GuidFactories.cs:122
  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)

What to do

  • Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
  • 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.
  • Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
X1 · Async correctness3.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×11) — AggregateFixture.cs:100, BddTestHelper.cs:43, BddTestHelper.cs:56, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation4.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 2/25 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. (×21) — OperationsController.cs:41, OperationsController.cs:49, ResourcesController.cs:48, …
  • No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. (×2) — EventFlyMiddleware.cs:102, EventFlyMiddleware.cs:125

What to do

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

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

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

X4 · Structured logging4.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×2) — EventFlyMiddleware.cs:104, EventFlyMiddleware.cs:127

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 0/1 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health47%Adequate — gated by D18, X1, X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture91%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity57%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness45%Adequate — gated by D12, ED5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security60%Adequate — gated by D30Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling56%Adequate — gated by DM2, DM4Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven86%ExemplarySolid.
Not included — 47 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
  • 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 — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); 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.
  • 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.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • 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
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events))
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 20 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×9
  • High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 — Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 22 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 13.0.1
  • High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.3.4
  • High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.3.1
  • High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.App 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.App 2.2.0 (direct) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.2.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.2.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.1
  • High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.2.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.2.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.1
  • High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebSockets 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebSockets 2.2.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Data.SqlClient 4.6.0 — System.Data.SqlClient 4.6.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.8.6
  • High CVE: System.Net.WebSockets.WebSocketProtocol 4.5.1 — System.Net.WebSockets.WebSocketProtocol 4.5.1 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×5
  • Critical CVE: Akka.Cluster 1.4.5 — Akka.Cluster 1.4.5 (transitive) has a Critical advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Critical CVE: Akka.Remote 1.4.5 — Akka.Remote 1.4.5 (transitive) has a Critical advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0 — System.Drawing.Common 4.7.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.7.2
  • Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.7.0 — System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.7.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 18 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.7.2
  • Critical CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core 2.2.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.3.6
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×3
  • Vulnerable: Microsoft.AspNetCore.App — Microsoft.AspNetCore.App [2.2.0, — ) severity. 2.2.0
  • Vulnerable: Microsoft.NETCore.App — Microsoft.NETCore.App [2.2.0, — ) severity. 2.2.0
  • Vulnerable: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×2
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj:27 — NU5104
  • NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:18 — NU5104
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1
  • No assertions (empty test): TestDistinctCommand_AfterTwoHandles_CommandFails test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:309 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
Warning — 57 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×12
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs:25 — //TODO: remove reflection — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs:32 — //TODO: remove reflection — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs:40 — //TODO: remove reflection — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/DefaultCommandValidator.cs:19 — //TODO: Reflection & cache — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/DefaultCommandValidator.cs:25 — //TODO: Parallel — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:27 — //todo Get rid of ServiceLocator anti-pattern? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobManager.cs:94 — //TODO: move to constructor — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Permissions/PermissionCommandValidator.cs:29 — //TODO: Cache — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphSchemaInternal.cs:15 — //TODO: Refactoring — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment test/EventFly.Tests/Abstractions/Serialization/SerializationTests.cs:133 — //TODO : Work Item - https://dev.azure.com/lutando/EventFly/_workitems/edit/25/
  • TodoComment test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:312 — // TODO https://dev.azure.com/lutando/EventFly/_workitems/edit/25
  • TodoComment test/EventFly.Tests/TestFixture/AggregateFixtureTests.cs:31 — //TODO - https://dev.azure.com/lutando/EventFly/_workitems/edit/23/
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×11
  • Medium CVE: Akka 1.4.5 — Akka 1.4.5 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 18 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.4.46
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.App 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.App 2.2.0 (direct) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.2.0 — Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.2.0 (direct) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.2
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.HttpSys 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.HttpSys 2.2.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.IIS 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.IIS 2.2.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.6
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.SpaServices 2.2.0 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.SpaServices 2.2.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.7
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 5.3.0 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 5.3.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 5.7.0
  • Medium CVE: System.Data.SqlClient 4.6.0 — System.Data.SqlClient 4.6.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.8.5
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 5.3.0 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 5.3.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 4.5.0 — System.Security.Cryptography.Xml 4.5.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 4.7.1
  • Medium CVE: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI 5.4.1 — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI 5.4.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.3.0
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×7
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.1 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.App — Microsoft.AspNetCore.App [2.2.0, — ) 2.2.0 Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.NETCore.App — Microsoft.NETCore.App [2.2.0, — ) 2.2.0 Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core 2.2.5 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers 3.0.0 — Legacy Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers >= 0.0.0
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×3
  • CommentedOutCode src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/BuilderExtensions.cs:66 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode test/EventFly.Tests/Application/Jobs/ScheduledJobsTests.cs:85 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode test/EventFly.Tests/Application/Jobs/ScheduledJobsTests.cs:121 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×3
  • Low cohesion: ContextDefinition (LCOM4 11) src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Definitions/ContextDefinition.cs:22 — ContextDefinition's methods form 11 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: EventSourcedAggregateRoot (LCOM4 4) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:51 — EventSourcedAggregateRoot's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: AsynchronousDomainService (LCOM4 4) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:17 — AsynchronousDomainService's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:53 — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:53-69 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:96-112
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:11 — src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:11-27 | src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:11-27
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:351 — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:351-361 | src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:432-442
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:106 — src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:106-116 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:72-84
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:470 — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:470-479 | src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:303-312
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:138 — src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:138-147 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:114-125
D16 · Bus Factor · dormant codebase · ×1
  • dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 1 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).
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×1
  • BarePragmaDisable src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphSchemaInternal.cs:8 — #pragma warning disable 618
D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1
  • Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 2), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: CS0023: Operator '.' cannot be applied to operand of type 'void'.
D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM evaluation failed · ×1
  • LLM evaluation failed — JSON parse error: Expected end of string, but instead reached end of data. Path: $.findings[0].docPath | LineNumber: 0 | BytePositionInLine: 1055.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments (cognitive 23) src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/QueryParametersHelper.cs:40 — QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · QueryParametersHelper.GetFields (cognitive 23) · ×1
  • QueryParametersHelper.GetFields (cognitive 23) src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/QueryParametersHelper.cs:145 — QueryParametersHelper.GetFields has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · Medium · ×1
  • Medium: missing-or-broken-authorization examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/BaseController.cs:31 — Anonymous access shouldn't be allowed unless explicit by design. Access control checks are missing and potentially can be bypassed. This finding violates the principle of least privilege or deny by default, where access should only be permitted for a specific set of roles or conforms to a custom policy or users. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule: it reports that a sensitive construct is present, not that it is exploitable here. Confirm whether this site handles untrusted input or is reachable across a trust boundary — and apply the change where it is; where the construct is required by the platform or protocol it calls into, and carries no untrusted data (a syscall/FFI shim, a build- or debug-gated tool, a fixed local surface), record the review and leave the code as it is.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: EventSourcedAggregateRoot src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 249 lines, 34 methods.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: IFixtureArranger.cs ↔ IFixtureAsserter.cs src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/IFixtureArranger.cs — `src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/IFixtureArranger.cs` and `src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/IFixtureAsserter.cs` change together 53% of the time (8 of the 15 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. They already sit in the same directory, so if they share structure, extract the common part into one unit; otherwise break the coupling.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:78 — src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:78-90 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:118-130
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:103 — src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:103-114 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:127-138
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs:75 — src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs:75-83 | src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs:90-98
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:131 — src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:131-137 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:153-159 | src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:211-217 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:135-141
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 4) examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:8 — examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:8-13 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:21-25 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:33-37 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:45-49
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces and real coverage will be read.
Recommendation — 11 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×2
  • redundant comment examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/Program.cs:21 — "IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN" — generated boilerplate license/grant text; no WHY
  • redundant comment examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.Jobs/PrintJobId.cs:8 — "this software and associated documentation files (the "Software")" — generated boilerplate; remove from code lines
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Largest orphaned file · ×2
  • Largest orphaned file src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Largest orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test runner surfaced no tests · ×1
  • Test runner surfaced no tests — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) ran but surfaced none of this repository's 131 test method(s) to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised. This is an analysis-environment limitation, not a finding about the tests.
D18 · Solution Shape · Thin analysable surface across projects · ×1
  • Thin analysable surface across projects — 1 project(s) carry only a thin slice of real code (e.g. `Demo.Host` with 42 significant line(s)). The mean analysable-surface weight is 99 %, lowering Solution Shape by about 0.1 point(s). Consolidate thin projects or grow them into substantial, well-scoped assemblies.
D21 · Naming Consistency · The class name `ComittedEventTests` contains a typo ('Comitted' instead of 'Committed'). This typo is also present in the method name `InstantiatingComittedEvent...`. This is a spelling inconsistency/typo in the codebase. · ×1
  • The class name `ComittedEventTests` contains a typo ('Comitted' instead of 'Committed'). This typo is also present in the method name `InstantiatingComittedEvent...`. This is a spelling inconsistency/typo in the codebase. — Rename `ComittedEventTests` to `CommittedEventTests` and update all related method names to fix the spelling of 'Committed'. (symbols: EventFly.Tests.Domain.Aggregates.ComittedEventTests, EventFly.Tests.Domain.Aggregates.ComittedEventTests.InstantiatingComittedEvent_WithNegativeSequenceNumber_ThrowsException())
D21 · Naming Consistency · The test class `ComittedEventTests` (typo) tests `DomainEvent`. The concept of a 'Committed Event' is central, but the typo in the test class name creates a visual inconsistency with the correct spelling used in the domain model (`DomainEvent`, `ICommittedEvent` in other places like `EventFly.Aggregates.ICommittedEvent` implied by context). · ×1
  • The test class `ComittedEventTests` (typo) tests `DomainEvent`. The concept of a 'Committed Event' is central, but the typo in the test class name creates a visual inconsistency with the correct spelling used in the domain model (`DomainEvent`, `ICommittedEvent` in other places like `EventFly.Aggregates.ICommittedEvent` implied by context). — Fix the typo in the test class name to `CommittedEventTests`. (symbols: EventFly.Tests.Domain.Aggregates.ComittedEventTests, EventFly.Aggregates.DomainEvent<TIdentity, TAggregateEvent>)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 18k LoC across 22 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split EventFly.Domain · ×1
  • Split EventFly.Domain — A domain project at 56k LoC and 19 namespaces is large and sprawling despite its name. Suggested: by namespace: EventDomain.Events, EventDomain.Aggregates, EventDomain.Repositories
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 77 of 77 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 77 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
Info — 28 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×27
  • Outdated: Akka.Cluster.TestKit — Akka.Cluster.TestKit 1.4.5 → 1.5.70 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: coverlet.msbuild — coverlet.msbuild 2.8.1 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 5.10.3 → 8.10.0 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 16.6.1 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.4.1 → 2.9.3 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 2.4.1 → 3.1.5 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 3.1.3 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by EventFly.Examples.Api).
  • Outdated: Akka.TestKit.Xunit2 — Akka.TestKit.Xunit2 1.4.5 → 1.5.70 available (referenced by EventFly.TestFixture).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 3.1.3 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by EventFly.TestFixture).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 1.0.0 → 10.0.301 available (referenced by EventFly.TestFixture).
  • Outdated: FluentValidation — FluentValidation 8.6.2 → 12.1.1 available (referenced by EventFly.Abstractions).
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3 → 13.0.4 available (referenced by EventFly.Abstractions).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 3.1.3 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework).
  • Outdated: GraphQL — GraphQL 2.4.0 → 8.8.4 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: GraphQL.Server.Ui.Playground — GraphQL.Server.Ui.Playground 3.4.0 → 8.3.3 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer 2.2.0 → 2.3.11 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core 2.2.5 → 2.3.11 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore 5.4.1 → 10.2.3 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore 2.2.0 → 2.3.11 available (referenced by Demo.Web).
  • Outdated: Akka.DI.Core — Akka.DI.Core 1.4.5 → 1.4.51 available (referenced by EventFly.Domain).
  • Outdated: Akka.Persistence — Akka.Persistence 1.4.5 → 1.5.70 available (referenced by EventFly.Domain).
  • Outdated: Akka.Persistence.Query — Akka.Persistence.Query 1.4.5 → 1.5.70 available (referenced by EventFly.Domain).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers 3.0.0 → 3.3.2 available (referenced by EventFly.Application).
  • Outdated: Cronos — Cronos 0.7.0 → 0.13.0 available (referenced by EventFly.Infrastructure).
  • Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 1.2.1 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by Demo.Tests).
  • + 2 more in this group — see findings.md.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .1artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list EventFly.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json25artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—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 Vulnerabilitiesosv-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 Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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—

Run 019faf5c-be10-7bfd-aed8-cde19abc5204 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 20 · Warnings: 57 · Recommendations: 11 · Info: 28 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 29-07-2026 @ 19:31 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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