Public report of Sporteco/EventFly, published 21 October 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Public
Executive report Measured under the Code Assurance Index, an open standard for code quality, using its published scoring rules (rubric version 2026.10.5). Watchdog signed this survey and filed it in the standard's public register, where anyone can look it up by its survey ID. Check this survey → Signed and filed in the standard's public register, 21 October 2026, 20:12 UTC · Survey ID cd_0233c0212235417d915b05ba4abc9361

Sporteco/EventFly

Measured 21 October 2026, 20:09 UTC, at code version 35a9f4c

Code coverage: not measuredTest reliability: not measuredBus factor: not measuredSupply-chain provenance & signing: not measuredIL efficiency: not measured

Code coverage is not measured: The repo's test suite did not build.

Test reliability is not measured: The repo's test suite did not build.

Bus factor is not measured: No living knowledge left to concentrate.

Supply-chain provenance & signing is not measured: Supply-chain provenance is not scored (this pipeline releases no artifact), but its build steps or GitHub Actions workflows have integrity defects, or nothing watches its dependency set for published advisories.

IL efficiency is not measured: The target did not build.

CAI score 49out of 100 Provisional Down 1 since the last survey

The score is built from these lenses. Each lens grades one area of the code, such as how easy it is to change or how well it is protected. The weakest lens counts most, so one weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away.

Event Sourcing 100 Exemplary Domain Modelling 99 Exemplary Architecture 92 Exemplary Event-Driven 86 Exemplary Performance 60 Strong Production Readiness 55 Adequate Security and Compliance 55 Adequate Maturity 51 Adequate Code Health 40 Weak

A small codebase: 19,121 lines of product code in 31 projects, tests not counted · Estimated rebuild effort: about 0.2 person-years · Weakest lens: Code Health, 40

Findings by how serious they are

26 critical 211 serious 146 minor

3 dimensions are left out of the score. For each one, Watchdog either couldn't measure it in this code, or found no evidence of the safeguard it looks for, such as a tested backup restore. They count neither for nor against the score, and Limitations lists each one with its reason.

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
21 October 2026, 20:09 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index records a number together with the evidence it was worked out from, so anyone can recalculate it, but it doesn't certify or guarantee the code. The standard was written by Canine Development, which also builds Watchdog. It is open to any tool that implements it, and today Watchdog is the only one that does.

The code didn't build, so the score is provisional
Watchdog couldn't build the code: the build stopped with 12 errors. The dimensions that need a working build, such as complexity, duplication and dead code, were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, so their grades and the score are provisional. Fix the build errors and run the survey again for a final score. The first errors: CS0023: Operator '.' cannot be applied to operand of type 'void'; CS0579: Duplicate 'global::System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCompanyAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyConfigurationAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCopyrightAttribute' attribute

The score is deterministic, which means the same code always gets the same score. Watchdog works it out with tools that follow published rules, and an AI model never decides it, so anyone who applies the same rules to the same code gets the same number. How it is done is explained under Methodology ▸

76of 81 dimensions measured by tools. The other 5 are advisory notes from an AI model, which explain the code but don't count towards the score.
344of 383 findings point to an exact file and line, so you can open each one in the code. The other 39 concern the repository as a whole, such as missing documentation.
81dimensions across 9 lenses, read from 19,121 lines of product code in 31 projects.
Chapters

Executive summary

Sporteco/EventFly scores 49 out of 100, but the score is provisional because the code didn't build, so the ratings below may change once it does. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Code Health, which scores 40 and is rated Weak. Its Nullable reference types dimension scores 2 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Code Health can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt and to resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt, and if Code Health rose to 70, the score would rise from 49 to about 56.

26 findings are critical: 13 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, four in Explicit Debt, three in Dependency Hygiene, two in Project dependency cycles, two in Secrets (history), one in Outbox / dual-write and one in Test Quality.

Watchdog couldn't measure Schema migrations in this code, so that dimension is left out of the score. The product code is 19,121 lines, which would take an estimated 0.2 person-years, around €29,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 40 Weak, capped by Solution Shape, Structured logging and Nullable reference types Architecture 92 ★ Exemplary Maturity 51 Adequate, capped by Knowledge Freshness and Architecture documentation Production Readiness 55 Adequate, capped by Dependency Hygiene Security and Compliance 55 Adequate, capped by Dependency Vulnerabilities and Platform End-of-Life Domain Modelling 99 ★ Exemplary Event-Driven 86 ★ Exemplary Event Sourcing 100 ★ Exemplary Performance 60 Strong

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

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.
Code Health 40 · counts for 45%Maturity 51 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 55 · counts for 14%Production Readiness 55 · counts for 8%Performance 60 · counts for 4%Event-Driven 86 · counts for 2%Architecture 92 · counts for 1%Domain Modelling 99 · counts for 1%Event Sourcing 100 · counts for 0%

If Code Health rose from 40 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 49 to about 56.

Code composition: what the lines of code are
Business logic 15%Supporting code 58%Tests 27%
New since the last survey: 44 findings

These 44 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 6 October 2026.

  • Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated: xunit REDACTED
  • Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated: xunit examples/demo/Demo.Tests/Demo.Tests.csproj
  • Secrets (history) · REDACTED
  • Secrets (history) · REDACTED
  • Web-Security Posture · Weak hash algorithm src/EventFly.Application/Queries/QueryManager.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Find examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsQueryHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FindAll examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsQueryHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Find examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Resources/ResourcesQueryHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: FindAll examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Resources/ResourcesQueryHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Handle examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Sagas/ResourceCreationSaga.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Project/ProjectAggregate.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Project/ProjectAggregate.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PostApplyAction src/EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkAggregateState.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteQuery src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphQueryHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: LoadState examples/demo/Demo.Infrastructure/AggregateStates/ProjectStateInMemory.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Handle examples/demo/Demo.Application/CreateProject/CreateProjectCommandHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Handle examples/demo/Demo.Application/DeleteProject/DeleteProjectCommandHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Handle examples/demo/Demo.Application/RenameUser/RenameUserCommandHandler.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Handle examples/demo/Demo.Application/TestSaga.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: UpdateAndSaveState src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateState.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Emit src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventDrivenAggregateRoot.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Ask src/EventFly.Domain/Akka/ActorRefProvider.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: Ask src/EventFly.Domain/Akka/ActorRefProvider.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PublishCommandAsync src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs
  • Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken: PublishCommandAsync src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs
  • Incompleteness & stubs · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/Snapshot/Strategies/SnapshotNeverStrategy.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/AggregateFixture.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphQueryHandler.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs
  • Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient/Program.cs

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

Fixed since the last survey: 3 findings

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

  • Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated: xunit
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/EventFly.Abstractions/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs
  • Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/EventFly.Domain/Events/AggregateEventTagger.cs
Rebuild cost: about €29,000 · Estimate
Cost to rebuild€9,600 to €48,000, for 160 to 504 hours of work, about 0.2 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problemVery high, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor×0.7 at a score of 49. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
SizeSmall: 19,121 lines of product code, of which 52% is declarations and boilerplate, 27% straight logic and 21% logic with branches
Comment linesThe estimate prices 14,116 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 19,121 lines but aren't priced as work.

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

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFlyBuilder.cs, RabbitMqEventProvider.cs.
Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt
2
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFly.Clustering.csproj, Directory.Build.props.
Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Explicit Debt
3
Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape.
Raises the score by about 6 points · Low effort · Solution Shape

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

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

If you do one thing first · First action
Fix the build. The code didn't build, so the dimensions that need a working build were measured on an incomplete picture of the code, and every grade in this report is provisional. Once the build works, the next survey gives a final score. The compiler's first errors: CS0023: Operator '.' cannot be applied to operand of type 'void'; CS0579: Duplicate 'global::System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCompanyAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyConfigurationAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCopyrightAttribute' attribute
Based on: Solution Shape
Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk
This code would cost about €29,000 to build again, about 0.2 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Code Health, at 40 (Weak). Code Health is about how easy the code is to read and change safely, and code that is hard to read is slow and risky to change, so every future change costs more than it should. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Code Health also moves the score most.
Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Code Health grade · how much each lens counts
What to do: Start with the Code Health actions in Top priorities.

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 Web Web Web->ctx:Demo ctx:EventFly EventFly Application · Domain · Infrastructure · Web Web->ctx:EventFly 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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

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

63 modules, with 140 dependencies between them. 2 loops run through 6 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 23 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →1 Commands.ExecutionResults2 Messages3 ValueObjects4 Core5 Core.VersionedTypes6 Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands7 Entities8 Jobs9 Metadata10 Permissions11 Aggregates.Snapshot12 Definitions13 Commands14 Infrastructure.Definitions15 Queries16 Aggregates17 Infrastructure.Commands18 Infrastructure.Jobs19 Infrastructure.Permissions20 Schedulers.Commands21 Aggregates.Snapshot.Strategies22 DomainService23 Events24 Extensions25 ExternalEventPublisher26 Infrastructure.Schedulers.Commands27 Sagas28 Schedulers.Events29 Subscribers30 ExternalEventProvider31 Infrastructure.DependencyInjection32 Infrastructure.Schedulers.Events33 Infrastructure.Subscribers34 Sagas.AggregateSaga35 Schedulers36 EventFly37 GraphQL38 Infrastructure.Schedulers39 RabbitMqEventProvider40 Swagger
1 Commands.ExecutionResults
2 Messages
3 ValueObjects
4 Core2
5 Core.VersionedTypes1
6 Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands3
7 Entities12
8 Jobs122
9 Metadata1
10 Permissions23
11 Aggregates.Snapshot2221
12 Definitions10132
13 Commands415221
14 Infrastructure.Definitions1129
15 Queries1
16 Aggregates116222333
17 Infrastructure.Commands121
18 Infrastructure.Jobs111461
19 Infrastructure.Permissions1412
20 Schedulers.Commands121
21 Aggregates.Snapshot.Strategies33
22 DomainService21234
23 Events135
24 Extensions21
25 ExternalEventPublisher1
26 Infrastructure.Schedulers.Commands121
27 Sagas133
28 Schedulers.Events121
29 Subscribers13
30 ExternalEventProvider11
31 Infrastructure.DependencyInjection11
32 Infrastructure.Schedulers.Events121
33 Infrastructure.Subscribers112
34 Sagas.AggregateSaga21322282
35 Schedulers1111
36 EventFly11162
37 GraphQL412
38 Infrastructure.Schedulers211112
39 RabbitMqEventProvider1111
40 Swagger112
Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself
1 Commands.ExecutionResults2 Messages3 ValueObjects4 Core5 Core.VersionedTypes6 Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands7 Entities8 Jobs9 Metadata10 Permissions11 Aggregates.Snapshot12 Definitions13 Commands14 Infrastructure.Definitions15 Queries16 Aggregates17 Infrastructure.Commands18 Infrastructure.Jobs19 Infrastructure.Permissions20 Schedulers.Commands21 Aggregates.Snapshot.Strategies22 DomainService23 Events24 Extensions25 ExternalEventPublisher26 Infrastructure.Schedulers.Commands27 Sagas28 Schedulers.Events29 Subscribers30 ExternalEventProvider31 Infrastructure.DependencyInjection32 Infrastructure.Schedulers.Events33 Infrastructure.Subscribers34 Sagas.AggregateSaga35 Schedulers36 EventFly37 GraphQL38 Infrastructure.Schedulers39 RabbitMqEventProvider40 SwaggerCommands.ExecutionResults1Messages2ValueObjects3Core4Core.VersionedTypes5Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands6Entities7Jobs8Metadata9Permissions10Aggregates.Snapshot11Definitions12Commands13Infrastructure.Definitions14Queries15Aggregates16Infrastructure.Commands17Infrastructure.Jobs18Infrastructure.Permissions19Schedulers.Commands20Aggregates.Snapshot.Strategies21DomainService22Events23Extensions24ExternalEventPublisher25Infrastructure.Schedulers.Commands26Sagas27Schedulers.Events28Subscribers29ExternalEventProvider30Infrastructure.DependencyInjection31Infrastructure.Schedulers.Events32Infrastructure.Subscribers33Sagas.AggregateSaga34Schedulers35EventFly36GraphQL37Infrastructure.Schedulers38RabbitMqEventProvider39Swagger40213121221232221101324152211129111622233312111146114121213321234135211121133121131111121112213222821111111624122111121111112+23 more modules (most-connected shown)

At a glance — Code Health · 40% · Weak · gated by D18, X4, 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 9.3 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.3 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 7.5 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0
The Bad
X1 · Repo Async correctness 4.8 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 5.2 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 4.9 X3 · Repo Exception handling 5.6
The Ugly
D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 3.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 4.2 X4 · Repo Structured logging 2.2 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 2.0

At a glance — Architecture · 92% · Exemplary ·

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 9.5 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.4 D23 · .NET / C# Boundary Type-Coupling 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 9.4 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.8 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 · 51% · Adequate · gated by D34, M2 ·

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 5.5 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 3.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 55% · Adequate · gated by D12 ·

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.5 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 7.7 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P2 · Repo Observability 5.3 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0
The Bad
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0
The Ugly
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 2.2

At a glance — Security · 55% · Adequate · gated by D30, D44 ·

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 8.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 7.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 10.0
The Bad
S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 5.0
The Ugly
D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 2.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 99% · Exemplary ·

The Good
DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 9.9

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

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good
ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0 ES3 · Repo PII in the event store 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 60% · Strong ·

The Good
PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures21High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures3High / Critical

Roadmap

First, address the explicit debt by resolving empty catch blocks in EventFlyBuilder.cs and RabbitMqEventProvider.cs, and removing unnecessary NoWarn directives in EventFly.Clustering.csproj and Directory.Build.props. Next, fix the current build failure to restore a stable solution shape. Then, enable nullable reference types across all projects and resolve the resulting warnings instead of suppressing them. Finally, replace interpolated strings in log messages to ensure proper structured logging.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFlyBuilder.cs, RabbitMqEventProvider.cs.+6.5 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFly.Clustering.csproj, Directory.Build.props.+6.5 ptsLowExplicit Debt
Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape.+5.8 ptsLowSolution Shape
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.+4.3 ptsMediumNullable reference types
Interpolated log message defeats structured logging+4.0 ptsMediumStructured logging
Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with CircularBufferTests.cs.+1.8 ptsLowComment Value
Resolve the 8 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, Demo.Tests.csproj.+1.3 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 75 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with TypeExtensions.cs (4), BuilderExtensions.cs (2), AggregateRoot.cs.+2.5 ptsMediumKnowledge Freshness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 66 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 3% slop · 11% mixed · 86% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED0.0SlopDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED0.2SlopDependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED2.1MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs3.1MixedTest Quality: Assertions commented out: TestDistinctCommand_AfterTwoHandles_CommandFails
REDACTED3.6MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED4.0MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED5.2MixedDependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj5.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
REDACTED5.8MixedSecrets (history): High secret: REDACTED
src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs6.0Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication.csproj6.4Near-cleanPlatform End-of-Life: End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp2.2
src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs6.9Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
test/EventFly.Tests/Application/Jobs/ScheduledJobsTests.cs6.9Near-cleanExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs7.0Near-cleanCode Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens)
src/EventFly.ExternalEventProvider/EventFly.ExternalEventProvider.csproj7.0Near-cleanCoupling: Off the main sequence: EventFly.ExternalEventProvider
src/EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher/EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher.csproj7.0Near-cleanCoupling: Off the main sequence: EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher
src/EventFly.Application/EventFly.Application.csproj7.0Near-cleanDependency Hygiene: Deprecated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers
src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/DefaultCommandValidator.cs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphSchemaInternal.cs7.3Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs7.4Near-cleanCode Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens)

How the grades work

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

Critical — 26

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

Serious — 211

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

Minor — 146

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

Could not be resolved — 3

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

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 76 of 81 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 81 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D23D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C2DM12ED1ED3ED4ED5ES1ES2ES3GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P6PF3S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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, 344 of 383 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
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets 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 01a16015-881b-7500-9857-e18738d90cbb.

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.

  • D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Every one of the 77 significant source file(s) was last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains, so there is no concentration to measure — 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 — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Msbuild failed when processing the file 'REDACTED' with message: Detected package version outside of dependency constraint: REDACTED requires Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions (>= 2.2.0 && < 2.3.0) but version Microsoft.Extensions.Dependency….
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
  • P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 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 — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
  • P8 Schema migrations — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Every other migration runner — DbUp, FluentMigrator, Evolve, Flyway, Liquibase, RoundhousE, a hand-rolled versioned-SQL runner — is invisible to the detector, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy in the repository. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool other than EF Core migrations, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 17 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 57.

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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • 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.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
  • 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.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
  • 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 on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
  • 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.
  • D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • 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.
  • 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 (5): D19, D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.4 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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

What to do

  1. Bring the 2 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments (cognitive 23), QueryParametersHelper.GetFields (cognitive 23). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.4 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
  2. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes9.8 / 10Stronggated by 1 serious finding✓ 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

What to do

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

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.3 / 10Stronggated by 31 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

28 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 3 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted. 3 of the 31 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:191
Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:253
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:433
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSagaManagerSettings.cs:35
Duplicated block (20–27 lines × 3)src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184

+ 21 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with TypeExtensions.cs, Consumer.cs, AggregateSaga.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AggregateSaga.cs, TypeExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AggregateSaga.cs, AggregateSagaManager.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D5 · Coupling9.5 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: EventFly.ExternalEventProvider · ×2src/EventFly.ExternalEventProvider/EventFly.ExternalEventProvider.csproj:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling — start with EventFly.ExternalEventProvider.csproj, EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.4 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 41 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: ContextDefinition (LCOM4 11) · ×2src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Definitions/ContextDefinition.cs:22

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ContextDefinition.cs, AsynchronousDomainService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.5 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 3 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 131 tests.

Assertions commented out: TestDistinctCommand_AfterTwoHandles_CommandFailstest/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:309
No assertions: InitialState_TestingSuccessCommand_SuccessResultReplied · ×2test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:287

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Assertions commented out finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AggregateTests.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with AggregateTests.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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 · ×8REDACTED:30
Outdated: coverlet.msbuild · ×12REDACTED:24
Outdated: Akka.Cluster.TestKit · ×15

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 8 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, Demo.Tests.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 3 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  4. 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 246 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 33 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 207 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ 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 Debt9.3 / 10Adequategated by 4 critical findings✓ 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

25 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 19121 LoC in the .NET projects (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.3. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×2src/EventFly.Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/EventFlyBuilder.cs:78
NoWarnInCsproj · ×2src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj:27
TodoComment · ×14src/EventFly.Abstractions/Aggregates/IDomainEvent.cs:33
CommentedOutCode · ×5src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/BuilderExtensions.cs:66
BarePragmaDisable · ×2src/EventFly.Abstractions/Metadata/MetadataContainer.cs:117

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFlyBuilder.cs, RabbitMqEventProvider.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EventFly.Clustering.csproj, Directory.Build.props. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 14 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with SagaLocatorBySagaId.cs (3), DefaultCommandValidator.cs (2), IDomainEvent.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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 — the split is derived per file: test is what its project, its own path, or a compile-guarded region marks as test, and a file carrying no test signal counts as production), 41 inter-project edges (build failed).

Build failed

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).

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

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The repository's root README is excellent at describing what the project is (an Akka.net cqrs/event-sourcing framework for .NET Core targeting netstandard2.0) and its high-level features (distributed concurrency, message-based scalability, event sourcing), with links to comprehensive documentation, a feature list, and an overview of each example directory's role. The examples directories are well written: the cluster sample explains three projects with detailed descriptions, the jobs sample models repeat triggers and includes a console application that sends scheduled jobs, and the web API example shows how to inject akka.net actors into ASP.NET Core via EventFly's IServiceCollection extension. However there is no single overview document for the project (no architecture or design docs), only an internal README with examples; this leaves the reader unable to determine what the framework does without reading the links.

Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Api · ×28REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 28 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with REDACTED, EventFly.TestFixture.csproj, EventFly.Examples.Jobs.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (28 warning-level).

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyAdequate◐ 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 Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

The class name 'ComittedEventTests' contains a typo ('Comitted' instead of 'Committed'). While the test method name correctly uses 'CommittedEvent', the class name itself is misspelled, creating an inconsistency within the same file and with the standard English spelling used elsewhere (e.g., 'CommittedEvent' in the method name and 'CommittedEvent<TIdentity, TAggregateEvent>' in the type signature).
The class 'JobToJobMannagerScheduler' contains a typo in 'Mannager' (double 'n'). This is inconsistent with the correct spelling 'Manager' used in other classes like 'AggregateManager', 'DomainServiceManager', and 'ReadModelManager'.
The test method name 'AndSpeficication_ReturnsTrue_Correctly' contains a typo in 'Speficication' (missing 'i'). This is inconsistent with the correct spelling 'Specification' used in the class name 'SpecificationsTests' and the type 'Specification<T>'.

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 class 'JobToJobMannagerScheduler' contains a typo in 'Mannager'… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 The test method name 'AndSpeficication_ReturnsTrue_Correctly' contains a… 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.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

No domain types leak across context boundaries (11 contexts).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment ValueWeak◐ 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 Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 valuable / 1 redundant across 129 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commenttest/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Core/CircularBufferTests.cs:42

What to do

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

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

D26 · Project Cohesion9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 31 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

✓ 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. C# also names each pass-through layer (a class whose every public method only forwards its own parameters to one collaborator) as a located finding; the score is not affected.

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.

Pass-through layer · ×2src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Schedulers/JobCommandsScheduler.cs:10

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Pass-through layer finding(s) in Navigability — start with JobCommandsScheduler.cs, JobEventsScheduler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)8.0 / 10Adequategated by 2 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

21 finding(s): 5 critical, 8 high, 8 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 8 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 5 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED, REDACTED. — 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. Counted over 77 of the 334 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

Orphaned file · ×75src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:1
Most significant orphaned file · ×2src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:1
Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 75 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with TypeExtensions.cs (4), BuilderExtensions.cs (2), AggregateRoot.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (75 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs, AggregateSaga.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
  3. 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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 31 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp2.2 · ×2examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication.csproj:5

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with EventFly.Examples.JobApplication.csproj, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d44_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 composition7.8 / 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. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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.

  • The namespaces EventFly.Aggregates ↔ EventFly.Aggregates.Snapshot ↔ EventFly.Commands ↔ EventFly.Definitions depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is EventFly.Aggregates.Snapshot → EventFly.Aggregates (EventFly.Aggregates.Snapshot.ISnapshotStrategy → EventFly.Aggregates.IAggregateRoot, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/Snapshot/ISnapshotStrategy.cs:26
  • The namespaces EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs ↔ EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands → EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs (EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands.Cancel → EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.SchedulerCommand, 3 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/Commands/Cancel.cs:28

What to do

  • Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.
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 declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. 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.
DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

  • `AggregateRoot` reads `DateTimeOffset.UtcNow` inside `From`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`. — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:46
  • `EventSourcedAggregateRoot` reads `DateTimeOffset.UtcNow` inside `From`, `FromObject`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`. — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:89
  • `ResourceCreationSaga` reads `DateTime.UtcNow` inside `Handle`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`. — examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Sagas/ResourceCreationSaga.cs:38

What to do

  • Take the instant and the randomness as inputs to the domain methods that need them — inject `TimeProvider` (BCL, .NET 8+) and a `Random`/seeded generator — so a test can choose both.
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.

  • `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. — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/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. — src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/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 · Idempotency7.7 / 10Exemplary◐ 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.

  • `CreateProject.CreateProjectCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish one hop away, in ProjectService.Create) 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. — examples/demo/Demo.Application/CreateProject/CreateProjectCommandHandler.cs:20
  • `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. — src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Subscribers/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.
ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether Apply/When folds reconstruct state purely from the event (no DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random or IO) so replay is reproducible.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether persisted events are immutable facts (init-only/readonly) — a settable event member lets stored history be rewritten.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

ES3 · PII in the event store10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the append-only event log avoids un-erasable personal data (or has a crypto-shredding strategy) — a GDPR right-to-erasure risk.

Method: Roslyn (event-sourcing gated): high-confidence PII flagged Warning; ambiguous name-like fields adjudicated by language model as person versus fictional. Advisory without model, definitive with.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 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. (×4) — src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/CustomMethodInfo.cs:55, examples/demo/Demo.Infrastructure/QueryHandlers/UsersQueryHandler.cs:53, src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:26, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs7.5 / 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, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `ShouldCreateSnapshot` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/Snapshot/Strategies/SnapshotNeverStrategy.cs:29
  • `Load` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:26, src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:101
  • `EmptyStep` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/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. — src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/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) — src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:117, src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/BuilderExtensions.cs:79, src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/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

  • Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 31 of 31 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 — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

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

What to do

  • Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability5.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 6/14 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 14, 3 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

  • Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
  • 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.

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 12 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). (×11) — src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/AggregateFixture.cs:100, src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:43, src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:56, …
  • `.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one). — examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient/Program.cs:88

What to do

  • Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult().
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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

  • MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. (×2) — src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:122, src/EventFly.Application/Queries/QueryManager.cs:59
  • None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves. (×2) — examples/demo/Demo.Web/Program.cs:14, examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Program.cs:37
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • This web host's pipeline is composed here with no UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts, and nothing says a reverse proxy terminates TLS in front of it. (×2) — examples/demo/Demo.Web/Program.cs:14, examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Program.cs:37

What to do

  • Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name. This repository constructs a collision-broken hash (MD5/SHA1) at 2 sites, not one: `src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:122` (SHA1), `src/EventFly.Application/Queries/QueryManager.cs:59` (MD5). Each is a separate decision — fixing only the line this row cites leaves the others in place.
  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy first, then Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options and a frame policy) — 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 correctness4.8 / 10Adequate✓ 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). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×12) — src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/AggregateFixture.cs:100, src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:43, src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:56, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `md5` is a `MD5`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 59). Every use of it in `CalculateMD5Hash` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var md5 = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw. — src/EventFly.Application/Queries/QueryManager.cs:59
  • `RabbitMqEventPublisher` declares a finalizer (line 121), but nothing in the type is unmanaged: no `IntPtr`/`UIntPtr` or pointer field, no `SafeHandle`, no `HandleRef`, no `extern`/`DllImport` member and no `Marshal`/`GCHandle`/`NativeMemory` use. A finalizer can only release what the garbage collector cannot, so on a purely-managed type it releases nothing and costs something: every instance is put on the finalizer queue, survives at least one extra collection, and is then finalized on a thread that is NOT the disposing one — where the managed objects it touches may already have been finalized themselves. Delete the finalizer (and the `GC.SuppressFinalize` that exists to defuse it); if a handle is added later, wrap it in a `SafeHandle`, which brings its own correct finalization. — src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/RabbitMqEventPublisher.cs:121
  • `RabbitMqEventPublisher` implements `IDisposable` — so it has told every caller it holds something worth releasing — and it constructs `_connectionSemaphoreSlim` itself (line 22), which makes that instance its own. But `_connectionSemaphoreSlim` is named in none of the methods the disposal search covered: `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108), `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108) — that is `Dispose` plus every method `Dispose` calls BY NAME, so a release reached through an interface, a delegate or a base class is not followed and is worth checking before acting. On what was read, the type's disposal releases everything except the one thing it owns. A disposable the owner never disposes is held until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and forever if it does not — which for a synchronisation primitive, a timer, a stream or a handle means the resource accumulates once per instance for the life of the process. Release it in `Dispose` (`_connectionSemaphoreSlim?.Dispose();`), or, if it truly does not need releasing, drop `IDisposable` from the type so the claim and the behaviour agree. — src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/RabbitMqEventPublisher.cs:22
  • `RabbitMqEventPublisher` implements `IDisposable` — so it has told every caller it holds something worth releasing — and it constructs `_initSemaphoreSlim` itself (line 23), which makes that instance its own. But `_initSemaphoreSlim` is named in none of the methods the disposal search covered: `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108), `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108) — that is `Dispose` plus every method `Dispose` calls BY NAME, so a release reached through an interface, a delegate or a base class is not followed and is worth checking before acting. On what was read, the type's disposal releases everything except the one thing it owns. A disposable the owner never disposes is held until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and forever if it does not — which for a synchronisation primitive, a timer, a stream or a handle means the resource accumulates once per instance for the life of the process. Release it in `Dispose` (`_initSemaphoreSlim?.Dispose();`), or, if it truly does not need releasing, drop `IDisposable` from the type so the claim and the behaviour agree. — src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/RabbitMqEventPublisher.cs:23

What to do

  • Each finding names the value and the span that decides who owns it — the `new` that created it, or the constructor parameter that handed it over. Confirm ownership from that span, then make the disposal match it: release what this type created, leave what it was injected with to whoever created THAT, and drop a finalizer whose type holds nothing unmanaged to release.
X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X2 · Cancellation propagation4.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 2/58 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. (×36) — examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:42, examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:50, examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/ResourcesController.cs:49, …
  • No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `context.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `context.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken. (×3) — src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:102, src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:125, src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:148

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X20 · Mistyped argument guard4.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

  • The guard on line 99 rejects `name` and line 99 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:99
  • The guard on line 114 rejects `nameBytes` and line 114 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `nameBytes.Length == 0` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `nameBytes`, and on that path `nameBytes` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:114
  • The guard on line 40 rejects `value` and line 41 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(value)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `value`, and on that path `value` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/SourceId.cs:41
  • The guard on line 41 rejects `name` and line 41 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/VersionedTypes/VersionedTypeAttribute.cs:41
  • The guard on line 35 rejects `name` and line 36 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Abstractions/Jobs/JobNameAttribute.cs:36
  • The guard on line 39 rejects `name` and line 40 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. (×2) — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateNameAttribute.cs:40, src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaNameAttribute.cs:40
  • The guard on line 33 rejects `name` and line 34 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/SerializedCommandPublisher.cs:34
  • The guard on line 37 rejects `json` and line 38 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(json)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `json`, and on that path `json` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/SerializedCommandPublisher.cs:38
  • The guard on line 23 rejects `name` and line 24 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Application/Queries/SerializedQueryExecutor.cs:24
  • The guard on line 25 rejects `json` and line 26 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(json)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `json`, and on that path `json` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Application/Queries/SerializedQueryExecutor.cs:26
  • The guard on line 46 rejects `cronExpression` and line 46 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(cronExpression)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `cronExpression`, and on that path `cronExpression` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition. — src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/Commands/ScheduleCron.cs:46

What to do

  • Each finding names the throw and the test in its own condition that is true of a NON-null value. Confirm from the two, then throw the exception that describes what was actually wrong: `ArgumentException` for a value that arrived empty, or the .NET 8 helpers that spell the whole guard in one line and pick the type for you — `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty(s)` / `ThrowIfNullOrWhiteSpace(s)` for strings, `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(x)` followed by `ArgumentOutOfRangeException.ThrowIfZero(x.Count)` for a collection. Splitting the two conditions is usually clearer than picking one exception for both: they are different failures and the caller may want to handle them differently.
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

X3 · Exception handling5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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.

  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×2) — src/EventFly.Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/EventFlyBuilder.cs:78, src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs:100
  • `catch (BrokerUnreachableException)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch. (×2) — src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:19, src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:19

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X4 · Structured logging2.2 / 10Weak✓ 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. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. 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. (×6) — src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:104, src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:115, src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:120, …

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 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). 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 Health40%Weak — gated by D18, X4, X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture92%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity51%Adequate — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness55%Adequate — gated by D12Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security55%Adequate — gated by D30, D44Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling99%ExemplarySolid.
Event-Driven86%ExemplarySolid.
Event Sourcing100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Performance60%StrongSolid.
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

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

  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X10 Duplicated predicate — 6 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

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

  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 41 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
  • AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • 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 reliability NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit: if it succeeds, the gap is ours and nothing here is a defect in your code.
  • D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
  • 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 intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
  • 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.
  • D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (5 signals for this style, 3 needed — the count is met but a required primary signal is absent): 13 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot); 31 value object(s); 3 domain event(s); its 12 aggregate(s) are building blocks, test types or a library's examples — not the repository's own domain; a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer; 19 aggregate-constrained repository/repositories (IRepository<T> where T : IAggregateRoot); a top-level examples/ tree: a library or framework whose examples are its consumers — these types are building blocks, not a domain
  • ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HttpClient/IHttpClientFactory/AddHttpClient in source, and no Refit/RestSharp/Flurl.Http namespace or package reference
  • P8 Schema migrations — EF Core is used, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified — this check only recognises EF migrations, so any other migration runner reads as an absence. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
  • 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) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — 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.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Critical — 26 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×8
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×5
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
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 — REDACTED — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
AX3 · Project dependency cycles · Namespace dependency cycle · ×2
  • Namespace dependency cycle src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/Snapshot/ISnapshotStrategy.cs:26 — The namespaces EventFly.Aggregates ↔ EventFly.Aggregates.Snapshot ↔ EventFly.Commands ↔ EventFly.Definitions depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is EventFly.Aggregates.Snapshot → EventFly.Aggregates (EventFly.Aggregates.Snapshot.ISnapshotStrategy → EventFly.Aggregates.IAggregateRoot, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
  • Namespace dependency cycle src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/Commands/Cancel.cs:28 — The namespaces EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs ↔ EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands → EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs (EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.Commands.Cancel → EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.SchedulerCommand, 3 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×2
  • EmptyCatchBlock src/EventFly.Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/EventFlyBuilder.cs:78 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
  • EmptyCatchBlock src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs:100 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate. Where swallowing one specific failure really is correct — as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — catch exactly that exception type and write down WHY in a comment on the catch. Both are needed: a comment on a catch-all still swallows every failure nobody anticipated, and a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all.
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×2
  • NoWarnInCsproj src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj:27 — NU5104 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
  • NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:18 — NU5104 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.
D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D10 · Test Quality · Assertions commented out · ×1
  • Assertions commented out: TestDistinctCommand_AfterTwoHandles_CommandFails test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:309 — The test body contains commented-out assertion calls and no live one — it runs, verifies nothing, and still passes. Restore the assertions or delete the test; a green test that checks nothing is worse than an absent one.
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write · Dual write (no outbox) · ×1
  • Dual write (no outbox): JobScheduler.Emit persists, JobScheduler.Execute publishes src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobScheduler.cs:234 — `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.
Serious — 211 finding(s)
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Async method without CancellationToken · ×39
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetResources examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:42 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetResources examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/OperationsController.cs:50 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PostResource examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/ResourcesController.cs:49 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetResources examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/ResourcesController.cs:71 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: GetResources examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Controllers/ResourcesController.cs:79 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Find examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsQueryHandler.cs:40 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: FindAll examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsQueryHandler.cs:51 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Find examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Resources/ResourcesQueryHandler.cs:41 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: FindAll examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Resources/ResourcesQueryHandler.cs:52 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Handle examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Sagas/ResourceCreationSaga.cs:38 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Create examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Project/ProjectAggregate.cs:24 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Delete examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Project/ProjectAggregate.cs:30 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Project/ProjectAggregate.cs:37 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Project/ProjectAggregate.cs:43 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Create examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/Services/ProjectService.cs:12 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Delete examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/Services/ProjectService.cs:25 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: CreateProject examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs:57 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: DeleteProject examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs:62 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs:67 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs:76 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Execute examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs:82 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: Rename examples/demo/Demo.Domain/User/UserAggregate.cs:88 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PostApplyAction src/EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkAggregateState.cs:26 — No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: ExecuteQueryAsync src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:102 — No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `context.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `context.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken.
  • Async method without CancellationToken: PublishCommandAsync src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:125 — No CancellationToken parameter, and the token `context.RequestAborted` carries reaches none of the calls here that take one — this work can't be stopped early once started. Pass `context.RequestAborted` on, or take a CancellationToken.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×28
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Api REDACTED — EventFly.Examples.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/96).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.TestFixture src/EventFly.TestFixture/EventFly.TestFixture.csproj — EventFly.TestFixture: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/50).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Jobs examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.Jobs/EventFly.Examples.Jobs.csproj — EventFly.Examples.Jobs: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/14).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.JobApplication examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication.csproj — EventFly.Examples.JobApplication: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/7).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Abstractions REDACTED — EventFly.Abstractions: 1 % XML-doc coverage (2/192).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Demo.Abstractions examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Demo.Abstractions.csproj — Demo.Abstractions: 1 % XML-doc coverage (2/286).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Demo.Domain examples/demo/Demo.Domain/Demo.Domain.csproj — Demo.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/46).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Demo.Host examples/demo/Demo.Host/Demo.Host.csproj — Demo.Host: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework src/EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework/EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework.csproj — EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Web REDACTED — EventFly.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/104).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Demo.Web REDACTED — Demo.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/8).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Demo.Infrastructure examples/demo/Demo.Infrastructure/Demo.Infrastructure.csproj — Demo.Infrastructure: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/45).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Demo.Application examples/demo/Demo.Application/Demo.Application.csproj — Demo.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/13).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Domain REDACTED — EventFly.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/426).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Application src/EventFly.Application/EventFly.Application.csproj — EventFly.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/120).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Infrastructure src/EventFly.Infrastructure/EventFly.Infrastructure.csproj — EventFly.Infrastructure: 4 % XML-doc coverage (7/184).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Extensions src/EventFly.Extensions/EventFly.Extensions.csproj — EventFly.Extensions: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/68).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher.csproj — EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider.csproj — EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient/EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient.csproj — EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/4).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Domain examples/simple/EventFly.Examples.Domain/EventFly.Examples.Domain.csproj — EventFly.Examples.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/22).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Seed examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.Seed/EventFly.Examples.Seed.csproj — EventFly.Examples.Seed: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Worker examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.Worker/EventFly.Examples.Worker.csproj — EventFly.Examples.Worker: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Predicates examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/Predicates.csproj — Predicates: 4 % XML-doc coverage (2/50).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFly.Examples.Application examples/simple/EventFly.Examples.Application/EventFly.Examples.Application.csproj — EventFly.Examples.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/2).
  • + 3 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×14
  • TodoComment src/EventFly.Abstractions/Aggregates/IDomainEvent.cs:33 — //TODO: перенести в abstractions — 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: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/Domain/Specifications/SpecificationsTests.cs:99 — //TODO adapt this — 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/TestFixture/AggregateFixtureTests.cs:31 — //TODO - https://dev.azure.com/lutando/EventFly/_workitems/edit/23/
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene · Sync-over-async blocking · ×13
  • Sync-over-async blocking — 12 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/AggregateFixture.cs:100 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:43 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:56 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:58 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:91 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphQueryHandler.cs:40 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:127 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:247 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:336 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:439 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs:98 — `.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
  • Sync-over-async blocking examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient/Program.cs:88 — `.Wait()` blocks this thread until the async work completes — it wastes a thread-pool thread for as long as the work runs and can deadlock wherever a synchronization context is in play (a UI thread, or a caller that has one).
X1 · Async correctness · Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) · ×12
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/AggregateFixture.cs:100 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:43 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:56 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:58 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:91 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphQueryHandler.cs:40 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:127 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:247 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:336 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:439 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs:98 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk) examples/cluster/EventFly.Examples.ClusterClient/Program.cs:88 — Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process.
X20 · Mistyped argument guard · Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves · ×12
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:99 — The guard on line 99 rejects `name` and line 99 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:114 — The guard on line 114 rejects `nameBytes` and line 114 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `nameBytes.Length == 0` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `nameBytes`, and on that path `nameBytes` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/SourceId.cs:41 — The guard on line 40 rejects `value` and line 41 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(value)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `value`, and on that path `value` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/VersionedTypes/VersionedTypeAttribute.cs:41 — The guard on line 41 rejects `name` and line 41 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Abstractions/Jobs/JobNameAttribute.cs:36 — The guard on line 35 rejects `name` and line 36 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateNameAttribute.cs:40 — The guard on line 39 rejects `name` and line 40 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/SerializedCommandPublisher.cs:34 — The guard on line 33 rejects `name` and line 34 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Domain/Commands/SerializedCommandPublisher.cs:38 — The guard on line 37 rejects `json` and line 38 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(json)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `json`, and on that path `json` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Application/Queries/SerializedQueryExecutor.cs:24 — The guard on line 23 rejects `name` and line 24 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Application/Queries/SerializedQueryExecutor.cs:26 — The guard on line 25 rejects `json` and line 26 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(json)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `json`, and on that path `json` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/SagaNameAttribute.cs:40 — The guard on line 39 rejects `name` and line 40 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrEmpty(name)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `name`, and on that path `name` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
  • Argument guard throws the exception its own condition disproves src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/Commands/ScheduleCron.cs:46 — The guard on line 46 rejects `cronExpression` and line 46 reports that rejection as `ArgumentNullException` — but the condition's own test `String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(cronExpression)` is true of a value that is NOT null: it is satisfied by an EMPTY `cronExpression`, and on that path `cronExpression` was already proven non-null by the very expression that decided it (`||` short-circuits, so the null test to its left had to be false to get here). So a caller who passes a valid empty argument is told a parameter was null. That is not a wording problem: the exception type is the contract. A caller catching `ArgumentNullException` to handle a real null swallows the empty case with it, and whoever reads the stack trace later is told a failure the source disproves. .NET separates the two on purpose — `ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull` and `ArgumentException.ThrowIfNullOrEmpty` are two helpers because they are two failures. Throw `ArgumentException` for the empty case, or split the guard and throw each on its own condition.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×8
  • Deprecated: xunit REDACTED:30 — xunit 2.4.1 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; that is the next major line under a new package id, so the move is a breaking rename rather than a version bump — budget for API changes in the code that uses it, not only the reference swap.
  • Deprecated: xunit examples/demo/Demo.Tests/Demo.Tests.csproj:12 — xunit 2.4.1 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; that is the next major line under a new package id, so the move is a breaking rename rather than a version bump — budget for API changes in the code that uses it, not only the reference swap.
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.App REDACTED:14 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.App [2.2.0, — ) — the publisher's replacement is `2.2.0` Other,Legacy; migrate the reference to it.
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.NETCore.App — Microsoft.NETCore.App [2.2.0, — ) — the publisher's replacement is `2.2.0` Other,Legacy; migrate the reference to it.
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer REDACTED:16 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core REDACTED:17 — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core 2.2.5 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore REDACTED:8 — Microsoft.AspNetCore 2.2.0 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers src/EventFly.Application/EventFly.Application.csproj:14 — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.FxCopAnalyzers 3.0.0 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.NetAnalyzers`; migrate the reference to it.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×8
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×5
  • CommentedOutCode src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/BuilderExtensions.cs:66 — 8 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode test/EventFly.Tests/Application/Jobs/ScheduledJobsTests.cs:45 — 10 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
  • CommentedOutCode test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:314 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code · Unfinished stub · ×4
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/CustomMethodInfo.cs:55 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException examples/demo/Demo.Infrastructure/QueryHandlers/UsersQueryHandler.cs:53 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:26 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:101 — A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:191 — src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:191-201 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:212-222 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:191` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs:76 — src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs:76-86 | src/EventFly.Application/Queries/Consumer.cs:91-101 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:238 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:238-250 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:77-87 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain · Domain type reads the wall clock · ×3
  • Domain type reads the wall clock: AggregateRoot src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:46 — `AggregateRoot` reads `DateTimeOffset.UtcNow` inside `From`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`.
  • Domain type reads the wall clock: EventSourcedAggregateRoot src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:89 — `EventSourcedAggregateRoot` reads `DateTimeOffset.UtcNow` inside `From`, `FromObject`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`.
  • Domain type reads the wall clock: ResourceCreationSaga examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Sagas/ResourceCreationSaga.cs:38 — `ResourceCreationSaga` reads `DateTime.UtcNow` inside `Handle`. The rule this feeds is not a function of its inputs: it cannot be tested at the instant that matters without moving the machine clock, and two reads inside one operation can observe different times. Pass the instant in as a parameter, or inject `TimeProvider`.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Unfinished stub · ×3
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:26 — `Load` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/EventFly.Domain/Definitions/AggregatedDefinitions.cs:101 — `Load` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
  • Unfinished stub — throws NotImplementedException src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/CustomMethodInfo.cs:55 — `Invoke` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2
  • No assertions: InitialState_TestingSuccessCommand_SuccessResultReplied test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:287 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: InitialState_TestingFailedCommand_SuccessResultReplied test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Aggregates/AggregateTests.cs:298 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×2
  • BarePragmaDisable src/EventFly.Abstractions/Metadata/MetadataContainer.cs:117 — #pragma warning disable 659 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
  • BarePragmaDisable src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/GraphSchemaInternal.cs:8 — #pragma warning disable 618 — the disable is closed again below, so its scope is not the problem; what it records is no reason: there is nothing on the directive line, and no ordinary comment attached to it either side. A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited and it outlives the code it was written for. Put the reason on the directive line — what makes this site legitimately different — or fix what the rule is pointing at and delete the pair. A rationale in the member's documentation comment does not clear this row and is not meant to: it explains the member to its callers, and the next person to touch the suppression is not reading it for that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×2
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:253 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:253-295 | src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:319-348 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:48-70 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:91-113 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:203-236 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (5 members, 50+ identical tokens) src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:51 — src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:51-68 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:64-81 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:86-103 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:108-126 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:257-275 — These 5 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 5 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 5 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:433 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:433-442 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:352-361 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:433` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSagaManager.cs:114 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSagaManager.cs:114-124 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/DomainServiceManager.cs:78-87 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSagaManagerSettings.cs:35 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSagaManagerSettings.cs:35-41 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/DomainServiceManagerSettings.cs:9-15 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsStorageHandler.cs:56 — examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsStorageHandler.cs:56-62 | examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Domain/Repositories/Operations/OperationsStorageHandler.cs:66-72 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `domainEvent` to `IDomainEvent<ResourceCreationSagaId, ResourceCreationProgressEvent>` in one and `IDomainEvent<ResourceCreationSagaId, ResourceCreationEndedEvent>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life · End-of-life runtime · ×2
  • End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp2.2 examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication.csproj:5 — examples/jobs/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication/EventFly.Examples.JobApplication.csproj declares .NET netcoreapp2.2 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 2.2, support ended 2019-12-23. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2019-12-23 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
  • End-of-life runtime: .NET netcoreapp3.0 REDACTED:10 — REDACTED declares .NET netcoreapp3.0 as this project's target framework, and .NET Core 3.0, support ended 2020-03-03. An unsupported runtime receives no security patches, so every vulnerability disclosed in it since 2020-03-03 is present and unfixable without moving off it. This is a migration rather than an upgrade: there is no newer release of a runtime that has ended.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×2
  • Off the main sequence: EventFly.ExternalEventProvider src/EventFly.ExternalEventProvider/EventFly.ExternalEventProvider.csproj:1 — EventFly.ExternalEventProvider: abstractness 1.00, instability 1.00, distance 1.00 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.
  • Off the main sequence: EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher src/EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher/EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher.csproj:1 — EventFly.ExternalEventPublisher: abstractness 1.00, instability 1.00, distance 1.00 — zone of uselessness — abstract and unstable, so it's likely unused.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2
  • Low cohesion: ContextDefinition (LCOM4 11) src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Definitions/ContextDefinition.cs:22 — ContextDefinition's methods fall into 11 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 11 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
  • Low cohesion: AsynchronousDomainService (LCOM4 4) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:17 — AsynchronousDomainService's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×2
  • Non-idempotent mutation: CreateProject.CreateProjectCommandHandler.Handle examples/demo/Demo.Application/CreateProject/CreateProjectCommandHandler.cs:20 — `CreateProject.CreateProjectCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (an event publish one hop away, in ProjectService.Create) 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.
  • Non-idempotent mutation: Subscribers.ExternalEventPublisher.HandleAsync src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Subscribers/ExternalEventPublisher.cs:24 — `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.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · Weak hash algorithm · ×2
  • Weak hash algorithm src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:122 — MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses.
  • Weak hash algorithm src/EventFly.Application/Queries/QueryManager.cs:59 — MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses.
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Owned disposable field is never released · ×2
  • Owned disposable field is never released src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/RabbitMqEventPublisher.cs:22 — `RabbitMqEventPublisher` implements `IDisposable` — so it has told every caller it holds something worth releasing — and it constructs `_connectionSemaphoreSlim` itself (line 22), which makes that instance its own. But `_connectionSemaphoreSlim` is named in none of the methods the disposal search covered: `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108), `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108) — that is `Dispose` plus every method `Dispose` calls BY NAME, so a release reached through an interface, a delegate or a base class is not followed and is worth checking before acting. On what was read, the type's disposal releases everything except the one thing it owns. A disposable the owner never disposes is held until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and forever if it does not — which for a synchronisation primitive, a timer, a stream or a handle means the resource accumulates once per instance for the life of the process. Release it in `Dispose` (`_connectionSemaphoreSlim?.Dispose();`), or, if it truly does not need releasing, drop `IDisposable` from the type so the claim and the behaviour agree.
  • Owned disposable field is never released src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/RabbitMqEventPublisher.cs:23 — `RabbitMqEventPublisher` implements `IDisposable` — so it has told every caller it holds something worth releasing — and it constructs `_initSemaphoreSlim` itself (line 23), which makes that instance its own. But `_initSemaphoreSlim` is named in none of the methods the disposal search covered: `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108), `Dispose` (line 102), `Dispose` (line 108) — that is `Dispose` plus every method `Dispose` calls BY NAME, so a release reached through an interface, a delegate or a base class is not followed and is worth checking before acting. On what was read, the type's disposal releases everything except the one thing it owns. A disposable the owner never disposes is held until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and forever if it does not — which for a synchronisation primitive, a timer, a stream or a handle means the resource accumulates once per instance for the life of the process. Release it in `Dispose` (`_initSemaphoreSlim?.Dispose();`), or, if it truly does not need releasing, drop `IDisposable` from the type so the claim and the behaviour agree.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (empty catch) · ×2
  • Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/EventFly.Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/EventFlyBuilder.cs:78 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
  • Swallowed exception (empty catch) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs:100 — An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it.
X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×2
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:19 — `catch (BrokerUnreachableException)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
  • Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:19 — `catch (BrokerUnreachableException)` does nothing with the exception it caught — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or let it propagate; if one specific failure genuinely cannot matter, catch exactly that exception type and say why in a comment on the catch.
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not measured · ×1
  • Test reliability not measured — test suite did not build — Test reliability NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no test ever ran and flakiness could not be exercised. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit: if it succeeds, the gap is ours and nothing here is a defect in your code.
D18 · Solution Shape · Build failed · ×1
  • Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 12), 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'; CS0579: Duplicate 'global::System.Runtime.Versioning.TargetFrameworkAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCompanyAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyConfigurationAttribute' attribute; CS0579: Duplicate 'System.Reflection.AssemblyCopyrightAttribute' attribute.
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, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (QueryParametersHelper.GetFields) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
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, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (QueryParametersHelper.GetArguments) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: EventSourcedAggregateRoot src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs — TooManyMethods — 249 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20–27 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20–27 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184-210 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:70-89 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:110-129 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 74 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:90` calls `Subscribe` and `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:211` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21–26 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (21–26 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:100 — src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:100-120 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:63-88 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs` and `src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 95 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:100` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15–22 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15–22 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:177 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:177-198 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:63-77 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:90-104 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 74 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:177` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:104` calls `GetBaseType` and `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:198` does not — after which the two agree again for 5 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:51 — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:51-70 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:94-113 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:51` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The `return` at the foot of the matched lines is the enclosing body's own terminal exit, not an early one: it moves with them unchanged, and each site calls the extracted unit from the position that `return` occupied — no decision has to be handed back and re-acted on.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–19 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12–19 lines × 4) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:97 — src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:97-108 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:134-145 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:56-74 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:105-123 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs` and `src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 95 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:97` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–18 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–18 lines × 4) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184-201 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:70-80 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:110-120 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/AggregateExtensions.cs:24-37 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 74 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:184` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:12 — src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:12-28 | src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs:12-28 — `src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs` and `src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/ConnectionFactoryExtensions.cs` are one unit implemented once per sibling directory, so they are most likely parallel implementations of one contract rather than a copy of each other — this scan matched 1 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 17 lines. If both are selected at run time, neither can be retired in favour of the other, and the lines that DIFFER between them are the reason both exist. The move that pays here is to hoist the identical part into a shared location the whole family can reach and give what differs a parameter or a seam, so a change lands once instead of once per sibling; extracting one helper per block leaves every sibling to drift on its own. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (17 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:51 — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:51-67 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:94-110 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:206-222 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 3 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 49 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:52 — src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:52-67 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:65-80 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:109-125 — there are 3 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 3 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:299 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:299-311 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:466-478 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:299` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:105 — src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:105-116 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:129-140 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just after the matched lines, `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:141` calls `GetBaseType` and `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:117` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13–15 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Clustering/Extentions/TypeExtensions.cs:45 — src/EventFly.Clustering/Extentions/TypeExtensions.cs:45-59 | src/EventFly.Clustering/Extentions/TypeExtensions.cs:69-81 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Clustering/Extentions/TypeExtensions.cs:45` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6–12 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6–12 lines × 5) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:255 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:255-262 | src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:319-330 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:48-55 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:91-98 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:205-210 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:255` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:205 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:205-215 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:147-157 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:128-139 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:205` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:127` calls `Contains` and `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:204` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–11 lines × 4) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:201 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:201-211 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:108-116 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:145-153 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:74-84 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:201` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9–10 lines × 5) src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:59 — src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:59-67 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:72-80 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:94-102 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:117-125 | src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:265-274 — there are 5 copies across 2 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 5 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:59` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:138 — src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:138-147 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:176-185 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:115-127 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs` and `src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 7 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 95 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:138` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:211 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:211-217 | src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:131-137 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:153-159 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:135-141 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 4 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 74 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:211` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:130` calls `Subscribe` and `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:210` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:91 — src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:91-97 | src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:116-122 | src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:84-90 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:91` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:90` calls `Subscribe` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:115` does not — after which the two agree again for 4 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:508 — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:508-512 | src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:388-392 — before extracting anything, compare `src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs` and `src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs` as WHOLE FILES: this scan already matched 5 separate duplicated blocks between them, totalling at least 53 lines, which is the signature of one file having been copied from the other rather than of a helper waiting to be extracted. The two sit in different directories, so one cannot simply be deleted in favour of the other while both are reached separately: hoist the shared part into a location both already depend on and have each file call it, and retire whichever file turns out to have no caller of its own left. Extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×1
  • Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:8 — examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:8-15 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:21-27 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:33-39 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:45-51 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:8 — examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:8-15 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:21-27 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:33-39 | examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericPredicate.cs:45-51 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Hollow method · ×1
  • Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/Snapshot/Strategies/SnapshotNeverStrategy.cs:29 — `ShouldCreateSnapshot` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Empty method body · ×1
  • Empty method body — does nothing with its inputs src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:28 — `EmptyStep` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it.
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene · NuGet dependencies are not locked · ×1
  • NuGet dependencies are not locked — No packages.lock.json and no central package management — restores aren't reproducible or pinned (SSDF PW.4.4). Enable <RestorePackagesWithLockFile>true</RestorePackagesWithLockFile> (commit the lockfile) or adopt Directory.Packages.props. Advisory — never scored.
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it · ×1
  • Disposable created and abandoned in the method that made it src/EventFly.Application/Queries/QueryManager.cs:59 — `md5` is a `MD5`, which implements `IDisposable`, and it is created here (line 59). Every use of it in `CalculateMD5Hash` reads a member through it — it is never returned, never stored, never handed to anything else, and never disposed — so this method both creates the value and is the last thing that can release it, and does not. Nothing announces the leak: the object holds its resource until finalization if its type has a finalizer, and until the process ends if it does not, so the cost accumulates once per CALL rather than showing up as a failure. Declare it with `using` (`using var md5 = …;`), which releases it at the end of the scope on every path including a throw.
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness · Finalizer on a type that owns no unmanaged resource · ×1
  • Finalizer on a type that owns no unmanaged resource src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher/RabbitMqEventPublisher.cs:121 — `RabbitMqEventPublisher` declares a finalizer (line 121), but nothing in the type is unmanaged: no `IntPtr`/`UIntPtr` or pointer field, no `SafeHandle`, no `HandleRef`, no `extern`/`DllImport` member and no `Marshal`/`GCHandle`/`NativeMemory` use. A finalizer can only release what the garbage collector cannot, so on a purely-managed type it releases nothing and costs something: every instance is put on the finalizer queue, survives at least one extra collection, and is then finalized on a thread that is NOT the disposing one — where the managed objects it touches may already have been finalized themselves. Delete the finalizer (and the `GC.SuppressFinalize` that exists to defuse it); if a handle is added later, wrap it in a `SafeHandle`, which brings its own correct finalization.
Minor — 131 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned file · ×75
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Definitions/DefinitionToManagerRegistry.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/AggregateFixture/AggregateFixture.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobScheduler.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Definitions/ContextDefinition.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/CommandsApiDescriptionGroupCollectionProvider.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/QueryParametersHelper.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/GuidFactories.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Core/VersionedTypes/VersionedTypeDefinitions.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventMetadata.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Clustering/Core/ClusterFactory.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Core/ReflectionHelper.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSagaManager.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/MicrosoftDependencyResolver.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateManager.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Events/AggregateEventUpcaster.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobManager.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.Abstractions/Core/Identity.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • Orphaned file src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/RabbitMqEventProvider.cs:1 — No one still active in this repository holds living knowledge of this file: everyone who made a meaningful change to it has gone quiet, or what the current team did to it (moves, reformatting, log-level or import edits, renames) never needed understanding it. If it breaks, no one currently understands it. Attach the read to the next change that touches it: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for.
  • + 50 more in this group — see findings.md.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×12
  • Outdated: coverlet.msbuild REDACTED:24 — coverlet.msbuild 2.8.1 → 10.1.0 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions REDACTED:28 — FluentAssertions 5.10.3 → 8.11.0 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions REDACTED:15 — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 3.1.3 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by EventFly.Examples.Api).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection examples/demo/Demo.Host/Demo.Host.csproj:9 — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 3.1.3 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by EventFly.TestFixture).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub src/EventFly.Clustering/EventFly.Clustering.csproj:35 — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 1.0.0 → 10.0.402 available (referenced by EventFly.TestFixture).
  • Outdated: FluentValidation REDACTED:14 — FluentValidation 8.6.2 → 12.2.0 available (referenced by EventFly.Abstractions).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore src/EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework/EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework.csproj:13 — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 3.1.3 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by EventFly.Storages.EntityFramework).
  • Outdated: GraphQL REDACTED:14 — GraphQL 2.4.0 → 8.8.5 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: GraphQL.Server.Ui.Playground REDACTED:15 — GraphQL.Server.Ui.Playground 3.4.0 → 8.3.3 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore REDACTED:18 — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore 5.4.1 → 10.3.1 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: coverlet.collector examples/demo/Demo.Tests/Demo.Tests.csproj:17 — coverlet.collector 1.2.1 → 10.1.0 available (referenced by Demo.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions src/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider/EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider.csproj:13 — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 3.1.3 → 10.0.13 available (referenced by EventFly.RabbitMqEventProvider).
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×8
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.TestFixture/Internals/BddTestHelper.cs:117 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/BuilderExtensions.cs:79 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/BuilderExtensions.cs:97 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/BuilderExtensions.cs:98 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/GraphQL/ObjectGraphTypeFromModel.cs:57 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/IApplicationBuilderExtensions.cs:37 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/IApplicationBuilderExtensions.cs:38 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/EventFly.Web/Swagger/BuilderExtensions.cs:82 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×6
  • Duplicated predicate src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs:32 — `!sourceId.IsNone() && _previousSourceIds.Any(s => s.Value == sourceId.Value)` appears character-identically in 4 files — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/AggregateRoot.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/CommittedEvent.cs:54 — `aggregateIdentity == null || String.IsNullOrEmpty(aggregateIdentity.Value)` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/CommittedEvent.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/DomainEvent.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/Snapshot/CommittedSnapshot.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:75 — `parameters.Length == 1 && aggregateEventType.GetTypeInfo().IsAssignableFrom(parameters[0].ParameterType)` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/EventFly.Application/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:83 — `parameters.Length == 1 && parameters[0].ParameterType.Name.Contains("Func")` appears character-identically in 4 files — src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Extensions/AggregateExtensions.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs, src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Jobs/JobRunner.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs:123 — `parameters.Length == 2 && parameters[0].ParameterType.Name.Contains("Func")` appears character-identically in 3 files — src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/DomainService/AsynchronousDomainService.cs, src/EventFly.Domain/Subscribers/DomainEventSubscriber.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
  • Duplicated predicate examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/DateTimeRangePredicate.cs:9 — `value >= (From ?? value) && value <= (To ?? value)` appears character-identically in 2 files — examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/DateTimeRangePredicate.cs, examples/demo/Demo.Abstractions/Predicates/NumericRangePredicate.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
X4 · Structured logging · Interpolated log message defeats structured logging · ×6
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:104 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:115 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:120 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:127 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:138 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it.
  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging src/EventFly.Web/EventFlyMiddleware.cs:143 — Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) 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.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · No security response headers detected · ×3
  • No security response headers detected — None of the 11 security response headers the OWASP Secure Headers Project recommends (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, …) is configured — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No security response headers detected examples/demo/Demo.Web/Program.cs:14 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
  • No security response headers detected examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Program.cs:37 — This web host's pipeline is composed here and adds no security response header (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, a frame policy) to what it serves.
S1 · Web-Security Posture · No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected · ×3
  • No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected — No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected examples/demo/Demo.Web/Program.cs:14 — This web host's pipeline is composed here with no UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts, and nothing says a reverse proxy terminates TLS in front of it.
  • No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected examples/web/EventFly.Examples.Api/Program.cs:37 — This web host's pipeline is composed here with no UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts, and nothing says a reverse proxy terminates TLS in front of it.
D27 · Navigability · Pass-through layer · ×2
  • Pass-through layer src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Schedulers/JobCommandsScheduler.cs:10 — JobCommandsScheduler: all 4 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to _scheduler and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call _scheduler directly, or give the layer a job.
  • Pass-through layer src/EventFly.Infrastructure/Schedulers/JobEventsScheduler.cs:10 — JobEventsScheduler: all 4 public methods forward their arguments unchanged to _scheduler and add no behaviour — an extra hop (and usually an extra interface) to trace through. Call _scheduler directly, or give the layer a job.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Most significant orphaned file · ×2
  • Most significant orphaned file src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/EventSourcedAggregateRoot.cs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
  • Most significant orphaned file src/EventFly.Application/Sagas/AggregateSaga/AggregateSaga.cs:1 — One of the orphaned files carrying the most lost knowledge — ranked by size weighted by the file's role in the codebase, the same weighting behind the score above, so core code outranks equally large plumbing. A reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
C2 · Access Controls · No named authorization policies · ×1
  • No named authorization policies — 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.
D21 · Naming Consistency · The class name 'ComittedEventTests' contains a typo ('Comitted' instead of 'Committed'). While the test method name correctly uses 'CommittedEvent', the class name itself is misspelled, creating an inconsistency within the same file and with the standard English spelling used elsewhere (e.g., 'CommittedEvent' in the method name and 'CommittedEvent<TIdentity, TAggregateEvent>' in the type signature). · ×1
  • The class name 'ComittedEventTests' contains a typo ('Comitted' instead of 'Committed'). While the test method name correctly uses 'CommittedEvent', the class name itself is misspelled, creating an inconsistency within the same file and with the standard English spelling used elsewhere (e.g., 'CommittedEvent' in the method name and 'CommittedEvent<TIdentity, TAggregateEvent>' in the type signature). — Rename the class to 'CommittedEventTests' to match the correct spelling of 'Committed' and the type name 'CommittedEvent'. (symbols: Type: EventFly.Tests.Domain.Aggregates.ComittedEventTests, Method: [Fact] public void EventFly.Tests.Domain.Aggregates.ComittedEventTests.InstantiatingCommittedEvent_WithNegativeSequenceNumber_ThrowsException())
D21 · Naming Consistency · The class 'JobToJobMannagerScheduler' contains a typo in 'Mannager' (double 'n'). This is inconsistent with the correct spelling 'Manager' used in other classes like 'AggregateManager', 'DomainServiceManager', and 'ReadModelManager'. · ×1
  • The class 'JobToJobMannagerScheduler' contains a typo in 'Mannager' (double 'n'). This is inconsistent with the correct spelling 'Manager' used in other classes like 'AggregateManager', 'DomainServiceManager', and 'ReadModelManager'. — Rename the class to 'JobToJobManagerScheduler' to correct the spelling of 'Manager'. (symbols: Method: public Task<bool> EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.JobToJobMannagerScheduler.Schedule<TJob, TJobId>(TJob, string, System.DateTime), Type: EventFly.Infrastructure.Jobs.JobScheduler<TJobScheduler, TJob, TIdentity>)
D21 · Naming Consistency · The test method name 'AndSpeficication_ReturnsTrue_Correctly' contains a typo in 'Speficication' (missing 'i'). This is inconsistent with the correct spelling 'Specification' used in the class name 'SpecificationsTests' and the type 'Specification<T>'. · ×1
  • The test method name 'AndSpeficication_ReturnsTrue_Correctly' contains a typo in 'Speficication' (missing 'i'). This is inconsistent with the correct spelling 'Specification' used in the class name 'SpecificationsTests' and the type 'Specification<T>'. — Rename the method to 'AndSpecification_ReturnsTrue_Correctly' to correct the spelling of 'Specification'. (symbols: Method: [Theory] public void EventFly.Tests.Domain.Specifications.SpecificationsTests.AndSpeficication_ReturnsTrue_Correctly(bool, bool, bool))
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment test/EventFly.Tests/Domain/Core/CircularBufferTests.cs:42 — "Below capacity" — delete - generated marker on an [InlineData] block, no WHY.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1
  • Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 1 of 31 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 9.4/10. The most over is `EventFly.Domain` (5697 LoC, 140 public types across 19 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — draw the boundary inside the assembly first (group each responsibility into its own namespace/folder and keep the cross-boundary members internal), since splitting a published assembly moves types between packages and breaks consumers.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
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. Counted over 77 of the 334 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
ED3 · Event naming · Event not named in past tense · ×1
  • Event not named in past tense: DomainEvent src/EventFly.Domain/Aggregates/DomainEvent.cs:34 — `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.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1
  • Logging is not universal — Only 6/14 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 14, 3 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
X2 · Cancellation propagation · Not all async methods take a CancellationToken · ×1
  • Not all async methods take a CancellationToken — Only 2/58 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.
X5 · Nullable reference types · Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere · ×1
  • Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere — 0/1 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
Minor — 15 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×15
  • Outdated: Akka.Cluster.TestKit — Akka.Cluster.TestKit 1.4.5 → 1.5.73 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 16.6.1 → 18.11.0 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 → 4.0.1 available (referenced by EventFly.Tests).
  • Outdated: Akka.TestKit.Xunit2 — Akka.TestKit.Xunit2 1.4.5 → 1.5.73 available (referenced by EventFly.TestFixture).
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — REDACTED → 13.0.4 available (referenced by EventFly.Abstractions).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.ApiExplorer 2.2.0 → 2.3.13 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Core 2.2.5 → 2.3.13 available (referenced by EventFly.Web).
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore 2.2.0 → 2.3.13 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 → 1.5.73 available (referenced by EventFly.Domain).
  • Outdated: Akka.Persistence.Query — Akka.Persistence.Query 1.4.5 → 1.5.73 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: RabbitMQ.Client — RabbitMQ.Client 6.0.0 → 7.2.2 available (referenced by EventFly.RabbitMqEventPublisher).

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 --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-d194fd3163704bcb93d452548445cbd5/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-d194fd3163704bcb93d452548445cbd5/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .0artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list EventFly.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json21artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.0—
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—
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—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).0—

Run 01a16015-881b-7500-9857-e18738d90cbb · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 26 · Warnings: 211 · Recommendations: 131 · Info: 15 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 21-10-2026 @ 20:09 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