Interpreted programming language interpreter built with DDD
Public report — hydrascript, published 19 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 19-06-2026 @ 22:08 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Stepami/hydrascript

coverage not measuredbounded contexts not declared
59% Fair
Code Health 95% Exemplary Architecture 83% Healthy Performance 80% Healthy Security 80% Fair Maturity 54% Fair Readiness 48% Poor

Small · 5,996 LoC · 13 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (48%)

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

51/54dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
62findings with an exact file:lineof 97 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
54/92dimensions across the health lenses5996 LoC · 13 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

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

Stepami/hydrascript is sound in substance but carries real gaps (59%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Code Health (95%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (83%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (48%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (54%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow and knowledge is concentrated in too few people (a bus-factor risk).

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths (Allocation hygiene); Make types internal by default (Library API & versioning).

For scale: Small (~5,996 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.

Code Health 95% ★ Exemplary Architecture 83% Healthy Maturity 54% Fair · gated by D16, M2 Readiness 48% Poor · gated by P3, P10 Security 80% Fair · gated by D36 Performance 80% Healthy
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 20%Plumbing 52%Tests 25%Analyzers 2%
New since the last scan (9+)

9 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-19) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Benchmarks benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.Constants src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/HydraScript.Domain.Constants.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.IR src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/HydraScript.Domain.IR.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Infrastructure src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure.csproj

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €3,500–€17,000
Cost to rebuild€3,500–€17,000 (0.1 person-years (58–184 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.8× (at 59% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 44% boilerplate · 29% straight-line · 27% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€10,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 48% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — library/CLI, DDD/clean architecture × a 0.8× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
+3.3 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
2
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 2 use(s) across 6,251 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
+2.1 pts · Medium effort · Allocation hygiene
3
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
+1.9 pts · Medium effort · Library API & versioning

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Fragile change-hotspots · High · Compound risk
2 hotspot file(s) are also under-tested or single-owner — change there is riskier than the headline suggests.
Evidence: D15 hotspots: 2 churn×complexity hotspot file(s) · D8 coverage: 0 file(s) under 50% coverage · D16 ownership: 11 file(s) ≥90% owned by one author · intersection: incl. Simple.cs, DeclarationVisitor.cs
→ Prioritise tests + a second reviewer on the worst files (Simple.cs, DeclarationVisitor.cs).
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 48%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (5,996 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 48%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.

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 HydraScript HydraScript ctx:Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure HydraScript->ctx:Infrastructure Benchmarks Benchmarks Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.UnitTests Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.UnitTests IntegrationTests IntegrationTests UnitTests UnitTests ctx:Application Application CodeGeneration · StaticAnalysis ctx:Domain Domain BackEnd · Constants · FrontEnd · IR ctx:Application->ctx:Domain ctx:Infrastructure->ctx:Application

At a glance — Code Health · 95% · Exemplary

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.4 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.6 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 9.4 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.7 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 8.8

At a glance — Architecture · 83% · Healthy

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 7.5 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 8.3 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.3 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.8 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.5 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
The Ugly
AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 4.8

At a glance — Maturity · 54% · Fair · gated by D16, M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 9.9 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 9.5 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7
The Ugly
D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 3.1 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 3.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 4.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 48% · Poor · gated by P3, P10

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.6 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 9.7 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0
The Bad
P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 2.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 1.0

At a glance — Security · 80% · Fair · gated by D36

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 D37 · .NET / C# Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0
The Ugly
D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0

At a glance — Performance · 80% · Healthy

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 9.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.2

Roadmap

Begin by establishing an architecture decision record log to capture significant design choices and their rationale. Next, improve allocation hygiene on hot paths by introducing memory pooling and value types to reduce pressure. Simultaneously, restrict the public API surface by making types internal by default to allow for safer internal refactoring. Finally, maintain a changelog to track release contents and add a testing section to the root README to clarify how to run the test suite.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+3.3 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 2 use(s) across 6,251 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.+2.1 ptsMediumAllocation hygiene
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.+1.9 ptsMediumLibrary API & versioning
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+0.8 ptsLowADR Quality
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+0.8 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+0.8 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+0.8 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+1.2 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 28 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 21% mixed · 79% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs5.5MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: SemanticChecker.cs ↔ ObjectType.cs
src/HydraScript/Program.cs6.2MixedChange Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Program.cs ↔ TestHostFixture.cs
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs7.0MixedCognitive Complexity: DeclarationVisitor.Visit (cognitive 20)
tests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests.csproj7.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs7.8MixedCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: InstructionProvider (LCOM4 5)
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs ↔ InstructionProvider.cs
tests/HydraScript.UnitTests/Domain/FrontEnd/TopDownParserTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Parse_Always_Expected
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs8.5Near-cleanCyclomatic Complexity: Simple.GetBinaryResult (cyclomatic 25)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/TopDownParser.cs8.5Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: TopDownParser
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (20 lines × 5)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/Ast/AbstractSyntaxTreeNode.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: AbstractSyntaxTreeNode (LCOM4 5)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/Ast/Nodes/Expressions/PrimaryExpressions/Literal.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Literal (LCOM4 5)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Types/Type.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Type (LCOM4 5)
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/TypeBuilder.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: TypeBuilder (LCOM4 4)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/AddressedInstructions.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: AddressedInstructions (LCOM4 4)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Impl/Symbols/TypeSymbol.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: TypeSymbol (LCOM4 4)
src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Types/ObjectType.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: ObjectType (LCOM4 4)
benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Benchmarks
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration
src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis

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. 51 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — 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 — 54 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D36D37AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X3X4X5

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, 62 of 97 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee1ed-4267-78ba-9a6f-0b61db157b28.

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.

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

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • 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 (6): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Simple.GetBinaryResult at 25.

Simple.GetBinaryResult (cyclomatic 25)src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs:83

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DeclarationVisitor.Visit at 20.

DeclarationVisitor.Visit (cognitive 20)src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs:76

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D3 · God Classes9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: TopDownParsersrc/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/TopDownParser.cs:0

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (20 lines × 5)src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:25

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling7.5 / 10Healthy✓ 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 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: HydraScript.Domain.Constants · ×4

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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)8.3 / 10Healthy✓ 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 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

9 of 65 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: InstructionProvider (LCOM4 5) · ×9src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs:17

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with AbstractSyntaxTreeNode.cs, AddressedInstructions.cs, InstructionProvider.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 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

73 test methods: 63 unit, 10 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 73 tests.

No assertions: Parse_Always_Expectedtests/HydraScript.UnitTests/Domain/FrontEnd/TopDownParserTests.cs:22
Mock framework: NSubstitute

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

9 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging · ×9

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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 24 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Top hotspots: src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs (1×25=25); src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs (1×15=15)

Hotspot: src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs · ×2src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D16 · Bus Factor3.1 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 3.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

11 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs, held by stepami@mail.ru.

Knowledge silo · ×2src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs
Knowledge silo · ×9src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs
Off-boarding risk: stepami@mail.ru

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 Knowledge silo finding(s) in Bus Factor — start with AddressedInstructions.cs, DeclarationVisitor.cs, InstructionProvider.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Knowledge silo finding(s) in Bus Factor — start with ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs, SemanticChecker.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 deducted debt markers + 1 dead symbols across 5996 LoC (0.2/KLoC) → score 9.7.

NoWarnInCsprojtests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests.csproj:4
Dead code: Programsrc/HydraScript/Program.cs:11

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 projects, 283 .cs files, 8010 hand-written lines of code (5996 production / 2014 test), 45 inter-project edges.

HydraScript.Benchmarks (Production)benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj
HydraScript (Production)src/HydraScript/HydraScript.csproj
HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration (Production)src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration.csproj
HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis (Production)src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis.csproj
HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd (Production)src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd.csproj

+ 8 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Poor◐ 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 Poor / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project has a functional but incomplete README that covers installation, history, goals, and partial language documentation. However, the language documentation is severely truncated, cutting off the 'Typing' section mid-sentence. The benchmarks README is purely raw output data with no explanatory text. Furthermore, the vast majority of the codebase lacks XML documentation (0% coverage in most assemblies), indicating a lack of inline code documentation. The project structure is clear, but the lack of comprehensive documentation and code comments significantly impacts overall quality.

Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Benchmarks · ×9benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj
XML-doc coverage: HydraScriptsrc/HydraScript/HydraScript.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration.csproj, HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis.csproj, HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Poor◐ 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 Poor / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

10 valuable / 18 redundant across 53 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×2tests/HydraScript.UnitTests/Application/ReturnAnalyzerTests.cs:22

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 13 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

72 % of calls cross a namespace and 14 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)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 --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. 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 Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 15 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SymbolTableInitializer.cs.

Orphaned knowledgesrc/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SymbolTableInitializer.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: DeclarationVisitor.cs↔SemanticChecker.cs 64%; SemanticChecker.cs↔ObjectType.cs 64%; Program.cs↔TestHostFixture.cs 60%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: SemanticChecker.cs ↔ ObjectType.cs · ×3src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs
Change coupling: DeclarationVisitor.cs ↔ SemanticChecker.cs · ×4src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM

What to do

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

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

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.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 composition9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

AX2 · Stateful singletons4.8 / 10Poor✓ 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.

  • `MethodStorage` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_bindings; e.g. `_bindings` at line 15). — MethodStorage.cs:7
  • `SymbolTableStorage` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_symbolTables; e.g. `_symbolTables` at line 13). — SymbolTableStorage.cs:7
  • `TypeDeclarationsResolver` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_declarationsToResolve; e.g. `_declarationsToResolve` at line 16). — TypeDeclarationsResolver.cs:8
  • `AmbiguousInvocationStorage` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_invocations; e.g. `_invocations` at line 13). — AmbiguousInvocationStorage.cs:6
  • `ReturnAnalyzer` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_returnStatements; e.g. `_returnStatements` at line 20). — ReturnAnalyzer.cs:7
  • `TopDownParser` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_tokens; e.g. `_tokens` at line 14). — TopDownParser.cs:8
  • `FrameContext` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_frames; e.g. `_frames` at line 11). — FrameContext.cs:5

What to do

  • Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

  • `Reset` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — TraverseEnumerator.cs:58

What to do

  • 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)6.7 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 13 of 13 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project 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 gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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.

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

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 213/265 types (80%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
  • No <Version>/<VersionPrefix>/GitVersion/MinVer detected. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
  • Stamp a semantic version (csproj <Version> or GitVersion/MinVer) and follow semver for breaking changes.
P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Fair✓ 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.

  • No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a BenchmarkDotNet suite, an allocation MemoryDiagnoser, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.2 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 2 use(s) across 6,251 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types8.8 / 10Healthy✓ 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.

  • ~1.5 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health95%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Architecture83%HealthySolid.
Maturity54%Fair — gated by D16, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness48%Poor — gated by P3, P10Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security80%Fair — gated by D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance80%HealthySolid.
Not included — 38 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
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
  • C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
  • D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 16 value object(s); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 7 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×3
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: SemanticChecker.cs ↔ ObjectType.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs — `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs` (context Application) and `src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Types/ObjectType.cs` (context Domain) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 64% of the time (7 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: Program.cs ↔ TestHostFixture.cs src/HydraScript/Program.cs — `src/HydraScript/Program.cs` (context HydraScript) and `tests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests/TestHostFixture.cs` (context tests) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 60% of the time (9 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: SemanticChecker.cs ↔ TopDownParser.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs — `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs` (context Application) and `src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/TopDownParser.cs` (context Domain) live in DIFFERENT modules yet change together 57% of the time (8 shared commits) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see.
D16 · Bus Factor · Knowledge silo · ×2
  • Knowledge silo src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1
  • No assertions: Parse_Always_Expected tests/HydraScript.UnitTests/Domain/FrontEnd/TopDownParserTests.cs:22 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×1
  • NoWarnInCsproj tests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests.csproj:4 — CA1816
Warning — 45 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Knowledge silo · ×9
  • Knowledge silo src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Types/ObjectType.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/TopDownParser.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/AddressedInstructions.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure/ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SymbolTableInitializer.cs — 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by stepami@mail.ru — if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×9
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Benchmarks benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj — HydraScript.Benchmarks: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/8).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration.csproj — HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/41).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis.csproj — HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/143).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd.csproj — HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/142).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.Constants src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/HydraScript.Domain.Constants.csproj — HydraScript.Domain.Constants: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd.csproj — HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd: 4 % XML-doc coverage (14/312).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Domain.IR src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/HydraScript.Domain.IR.csproj — HydraScript.Domain.IR: 12 % XML-doc coverage (16/131).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.csproj — HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: HydraScript.Infrastructure src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure.csproj — HydraScript.Infrastructure: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/28).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×9
  • Low cohesion: InstructionProvider (LCOM4 5) src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs:17 — InstructionProvider's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: AbstractSyntaxTreeNode (LCOM4 5) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/Ast/AbstractSyntaxTreeNode.cs:6 — AbstractSyntaxTreeNode's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Literal (LCOM4 5) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/Ast/Nodes/Expressions/PrimaryExpressions/Literal.cs:5 — Literal's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Type (LCOM4 5) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Types/Type.cs:6 — Type's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: SemanticChecker (LCOM4 4) src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs:19 — SemanticChecker's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: TypeBuilder (LCOM4 4) src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/TypeBuilder.cs:9 — TypeBuilder's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: AddressedInstructions (LCOM4 4) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/AddressedInstructions.cs:7 — AddressedInstructions's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: TypeSymbol (LCOM4 4) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Impl/Symbols/TypeSymbol.cs:5 — TypeSymbol's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: ObjectType (LCOM4 4) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/Types/ObjectType.cs:7 — ObjectType's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×4
  • Change coupling: DeclarationVisitor.cs ↔ SemanticChecker.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs — `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs` and `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs` change together 64% of the time (9 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: InstructionProvider.cs ↔ SemanticChecker.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs — `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs` and `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs` change together 60% of the time (9 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs ↔ InstructionProvider.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs — `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs` and `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/InstructionProvider.cs` change together 58% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs ↔ SemanticChecker.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs — `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/Visitors/ExpressionInstructionProvider.cs` and `src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SemanticChecker.cs` change together 58% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×4
  • Off the main sequence: HydraScript.Domain.Constants — HydraScript.Domain.Constants: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator — HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator: abstractness 0.14, instability 0.00, distance 0.86 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: HydraScript.Domain.IR — HydraScript.Domain.IR: abstractness 0.23, instability 0.00, distance 0.77 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd — HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd: abstractness 0.25, instability 0.00, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×2
  • Hotspot: src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs — src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs changed 1 times in last 90 days, max complexity 25. 1 of those changes were fix/bug commits — a defect-dense hotspot worth prioritising.
  • Hotspot: src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs — src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs changed 1 times in last 90 days, max complexity 15.
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Simple.GetBinaryResult (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • Simple.GetBinaryResult (cyclomatic 25) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/Impl/Instructions/WithAssignment/Simple.cs:83 — Simple.GetBinaryResult has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×1
  • Dead code: Program src/HydraScript/Program.cs:11 — NamedType Program — no references found in solution.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DeclarationVisitor.Visit (cognitive 20) · ×1
  • DeclarationVisitor.Visit (cognitive 20) src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/DeclarationVisitor.cs:76 — DeclarationVisitor.Visit has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15).
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×1
  • TooManyMethods: TopDownParser src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/Parser/Impl/TopDownParser.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 427 lines, 48 methods.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×1
  • Orphaned knowledge src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/Visitors/SymbolTableInitializer.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (20 lines × 5) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (20 lines × 5) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:25 — src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:25-43 | src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:57-76 | src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:78-96 | src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:98-116 | src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/TokenTypes.cs:118-136
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 15 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×2
  • redundant comment tests/HydraScript.UnitTests/Application/ReturnAnalyzerTests.cs:22 — "// Arrange" — Remove. 'Arrange' is a standard test pattern label; it adds no new information about the specific test data.
  • redundant comment src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/GlobalUsings.cs:1 — "// Global using directives" — Remove. This is a standard file header comment that adds no value beyond the file structure.
D11 · Test Reliability · No tests discovered · ×1
  • No tests discovered — Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) built and ran but no tests were discovered, so reliability couldn't be exercised.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: stepami@mail.ru — If stepami@mail.ru becomes unavailable, 11 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner — the largest single-person knowledge concentration (weighted toward the domain core). Pair, review, or document these before any departure.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — The codebase is large and multi-module, indicating distinct architectural layers or domains that require explicit boundary declaration to manage coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 30 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×9
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 10.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: System.CommandLine — System.CommandLine 2.0.8 → 2.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 10.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 10.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 10.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.Testing — Microsoft.Extensions.Diagnostics.Testing 10.5.0 → 10.7.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage — Microsoft.Testing.Extensions.CodeCoverage 18.6.2 → 18.8.0 available.
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — HydraScript.UnitTests references NSubstitute.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 24 packages scanned; 2 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Benchmarks (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Benchmarks (Production) benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks/HydraScript.Benchmarks.csproj — 3 .cs files, 74 LoC (60 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript (Production) src/HydraScript/HydraScript.csproj — 2 .cs files, 62 LoC (55 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration (Production) src/Application/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration/HydraScript.Application.CodeGeneration.csproj — 8 .cs files, 718 LoC (586 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis (Production) src/Application/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis/HydraScript.Application.StaticAnalysis.csproj — 50 .cs files, 1566 LoC (1264 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd (Production) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd/HydraScript.Domain.BackEnd.csproj — 46 .cs files, 948 LoC (756 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Domain.Constants (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Domain.Constants (Production) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.Constants/HydraScript.Domain.Constants.csproj — 4 .cs files, 170 LoC (137 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd (Production) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd/HydraScript.Domain.FrontEnd.csproj — 68 .cs files, 2506 LoC (1834 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Domain.IR (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Domain.IR (Production) src/Domain/HydraScript.Domain.IR/HydraScript.Domain.IR.csproj — 34 .cs files, 834 LoC (637 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator (Analyzer) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator (Analyzer) src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.csproj — 7 .cs files, 224 LoC (179 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Infrastructure (Production) src/Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure/HydraScript.Infrastructure.csproj — 12 .cs files, 301 LoC (255 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.UnitTests (Production) · ×1
  • HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.UnitTests (Production) tests/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.UnitTests/HydraScript.Infrastructure.LexerRegexGenerator.UnitTests.csproj — 2 .cs files, 80 LoC (64 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.IntegrationTests (Test) · ×1
  • HydraScript.IntegrationTests (Test) tests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests/HydraScript.IntegrationTests.csproj — 12 .cs files, 380 LoC (332 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · HydraScript.UnitTests (Test) · ×1
  • HydraScript.UnitTests (Test) tests/HydraScript.UnitTests/HydraScript.UnitTests.csproj — 35 .cs files, 1838 LoC (1557 significant)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1
  • XML-doc coverage: HydraScript src/HydraScript/HydraScript.csproj — HydraScript: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 63 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 10 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list ExtendedJavaScriptSubset.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019ee1ed-4267-78ba-9a6f-0b61db157b28 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 7 · Warnings: 45 · Recommendations: 15 · Info: 30 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 19-06-2026 @ 22:08 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