Public report — Architect.DomainModeling, 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 @ 22:12 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

TheArchitectDev/Architect.DomainModeling

coverage not measuredsingle-maintainerbounded contexts not declared
54% Fair
Security 98% Exemplary Architecture 98% Exemplary Code Health 84% Fair Performance 83% Healthy Maturity 52% Fair Readiness 36% Poor

Small · 10,211 LoC · 6 projects · rebuild ~0.5 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (36%)

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

46/49dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
124findings with an exact file:lineof 157 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
49/91dimensions across the health lenses10211 LoC · 6 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.

TheArchitectDev/Architect.DomainModeling is sound in substance but carries real gaps (54%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Security (98%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Architecture (98%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (36%) — 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 (52%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with… (Benchmark discipline).

For scale: Small (~10,211 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.5 person-years (~1–2 engineers). 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 84% Fair · gated by D1, D2 Architecture 98% ★ Exemplary Maturity 52% Fair · gated by M2 Readiness 36% Poor · gated by P1, P3 Security 98% ★ Exemplary Performance 83% Healthy
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 12%Plumbing 31%Tests 30%Analyzers 27%
New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-18) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling.Example DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling.Generator DomainModeling.Generator/DomainModeling.Generator.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 — €25,000–€130,000
Cost to rebuild€25,000–€130,000 (0.3–0.8 person-years (422–1,381 h), ~1–2 engineers)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.8× (at 54% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 48% boilerplate · 12% straight-line · 41% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€78,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 36% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — library/CLI, high decision density × 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
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
+2.4 pts · Medium effort · CI/CD gates
3
Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
+2.2 pts · Medium effort · Benchmark discipline

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 36%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.5 person-years rebuild (10,211 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 36%
→ 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.
A velocity tax on every change · Medium · Economics
The code-quality signals (complexity, duplication, cohesion) average 6.4/10, which acts as a tax on every change in the weaker areas: modifications there plausibly cost on the order of 4–9% more than in clean code, and the tax compounds as the codebase grows. (A modelled estimate, not a measured fact.)
Evidence: D1/D2 complexity, D4 duplication, D6 cohesion: averaging 6.4/10 across the code-quality signals
→ Pay it down where churn is highest — the hotspots — not everywhere; that's where the tax is actually paid.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+19.0 pts/run over 3 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +19.0 pts/run over 3 runs

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

arch DomainModeling DomainModeling

At a glance — Code Health · 84% · Fair · gated by D1, D2

The Good
D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 8.4 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.3 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 7.8 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 9.1
The Ugly
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 2.7 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 3.5

At a glance — Architecture · 98% · Exemplary

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.7 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 8.9 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.4 AX10 · Repo Code composition 9.8 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

At a glance — Maturity · 52% · Fair · gated by M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 8.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 6.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 36% · Poor · gated by P1, P3

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.6 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 9.2 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0
The Bad
P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 6.0
The Ugly
P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 98% · Exemplary

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.4

At a glance — Performance · 83% · Healthy

The Good
PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 10.0 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0
The Bad
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components1High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by establishing an ADR log to record significant architectural decisions and their rationale. Implement a CI workflow to build the code and run the test suite on every push or pull request. Group production code under a src directory to separate it from tooling and test code. Finally, maintain a changelog to track what is shipped in each release.

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
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.+2.4 ptsMediumCI/CD gates
Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.+2.2 ptsMediumBenchmark discipline
Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+1.1 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+0.8 ptsLowADR Quality
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+1.3 ptsMediumFolder & project structure
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+1.2 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.+1.0 ptsMediumSchema migrations

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 25 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 68% mixed · 32% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs4.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 162)
DomainModeling.Tests/Entities/Entity.SourceGeneratedIdentityTests.cs4.9MixedTest Quality: No assertions: Construct_WithNull_ShouldSucceed
DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj5.8MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
DomainModeling.Generator/DomainModeling.Generator.csproj6.1MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj6.1MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
DomainModeling/Attributes/SourceGeneratedAttribute.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
DomainModeling/DummyBuilder.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
DomainModeling/Entity.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
DomainModeling.Tests/IdentityTests.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: Construct_WithNull_ShouldSucceed
DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs7.0MixedCyclomatic Complexity: WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 144)
DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs7.1MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 55)
DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs7.2MixedCyclomatic Complexity: ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters (cyclomatic 16)
DomainModeling.Tests/ValueObjectTests.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
DomainModeling.Generator/DummyBuilderGenerator.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 58)
DomainModeling/Comparisons/LookupComparer.cs7.8MixedCyclomatic Complexity: LookupComparer.LookupEquals (cyclomatic 16)
DomainModeling.Tests/WrapperValueObjectTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
DomainModeling.Tests/Comparisons/EnumerableComparerTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: StringIdEntity
DomainModeling/ValueObject.cs8.5Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: ValueObject

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. 46 of 49 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 49 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3P6P8PF1PF2PF3X1X3X4X5

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, 124 of 157 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 019ee1f1-bb78-722e-b59e-e88e29065661.

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.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 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.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — 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.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (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.
  • 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 Complexity2.7 / 10Poor✓ 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 2.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode at 162.

IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 162)DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:51
WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 144)DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:40
WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 119)DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:251
IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 108)DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:287
DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 58)DomainModeling.Generator/DummyBuilderGenerator.cs:85

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 162) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with IdentityGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 144) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 119) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity3.5 / 10Poor✓ 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 3.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

13 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource at 118.

WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 118)DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:251
IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 115)DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:287
DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 105)DomainModeling.Generator/DummyBuilderGenerator.cs:85
ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 54)DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:148
IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 49)DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:51

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 118) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 115) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with IdentityGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 105) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DummyBuilderGenerator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D3 · God Classes8.4 / 10Healthy✓ 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: ValueObject · ×2DomainModeling/ValueObject.cs:0
ClassTooLong: IdentityGenerator · ×2DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:0

What to do

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

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

D4 · Code Duplication9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

16 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:181
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:63
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:139
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:521
Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×2DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:88

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling8.7 / 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 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: DomainModeling.Generator

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 8 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.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

217 test methods: 217 unit, 0 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, 3 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 217 tests.

No assertions: Construct_WithNull_ShouldSucceed · ×3DomainModeling.Tests/Entities/Entity.SourceGeneratedIdentityTests.cs:12

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.2 / 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 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

9 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: xunit
Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json · ×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 8 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 Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

git history depth insufficient

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt7.8 / 10Healthy✓ 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 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

32 deducted debt markers + 4 dead symbols across 10211 LoC (1.1/KLoC) → score 7.8.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×5DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj:16
TodoComment · ×10DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:37
ObsoleteWithCallers · ×9DomainModeling/Attributes/SourceGeneratedAttribute.cs:11
Dead code: StringIdEntity · ×4DomainModeling.Tests/Comparisons/EnumerableComparerTests.cs:393
ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×8DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:98

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DomainModeling.Tests.csproj (3), DomainModeling.Example.csproj, DomainModeling.Generator.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 10 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with EnumerableComparer.cs (6), Entity.cs (3), TypeSymbolExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 9 ObsoleteWithCallers finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DummyBuilder.cs (3), SourceGeneratedAttribute.cs (3), TypeSymbolExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D18 · Solution 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

6 projects, 148 .cs files, 14578 hand-written lines of code (10211 production / 4367 test), 3 inter-project edges.

DomainModeling.Example (Production)DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj
DomainModeling(net8.0) (Production)DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj
DomainModeling(net7.0) (Production)DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj
DomainModeling(net6.0) (Production)DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj
DomainModeling.Tests (Test)DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj

+ 1 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 / 10Fair◐ 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 Fair / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project contains a single, well-structured README file that provides a high-level overview of the library's features, source generator usage, and domain object types. The documentation is clear and includes code examples. However, the project lacks any architecture or design documentation, and the codebase has very low XML documentation coverage (4% for the main model, 31% for the generator), which suggests the code is not well-documented for IDE consumption or API reference generation.

Low XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling.Example · ×2DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj
XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling(net8.0) · ×3DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with DomainModeling.Example.csproj, DomainModeling.Generator.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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 / 10Healthy◐ 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 Healthy / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

45 valuable / 15 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentDomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:90

What to do

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

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

D26 · Project 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 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 · Navigability8.9 / 10Healthy✓ 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 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

81 % of calls cross a namespace and 9 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.9/10. — 81 % of calls cross a namespace and 9 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)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 Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.10detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.4 / 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 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: IdentityGenerator.cs↔WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs 62%; IdentityGenerator.cs↔ValueObjectGenerator.cs 50%

Change coupling: IdentityGenerator.cs ↔ WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs · ×2DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs
git history depth insufficient

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.8 / 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.

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
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.

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — SourceGenerator.cs:28
  • `ToString`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. (×2) — FormattingHelper.cs:25, FormattingHelper.cs:25
  • `TryFormat`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. (×3) — FormattingHelper.cs:69, FormattingHelper.cs:69, FormattingHelper.cs:129
  • `TryParse`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. (×4) — ParsingHelper.cs:26, ParsingHelper.cs:26, ParsingHelper.cs:66, …
  • `Parse`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. (×4) — ParsingHelper.cs:46, ParsingHelper.cs:46, ParsingHelper.cs:86, …
  • `GetHashCode`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. (×3) — ValueObject.cs:18, ValueObject.cs:18, ValueObject.cs:18
  • `Equals`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. (×3) — ValueObject.cs:19, ValueObject.cs:19, ValueObject.cs:19

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)7.3 / 10Healthy✓ 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 an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 4 of 4 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 structure6.0 / 10Fair✓ 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.

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
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 gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/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.
P8 · Schema migrations6.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Fair✓ 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.

  • No BenchmarkDotNet suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

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 types9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ 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.

  • ~1.2 `!` 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 Health84%Fair — gated by D1, D2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture98%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity52%Fair — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness36%Poor — gated by P1, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security98%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Performance83%HealthySolid.
Not included — 42 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.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • 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.
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
  • 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
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — 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 — not run — only 1/3 markers (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 CI workflow found
  • 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
  • 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 — 9 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×5
  • NoWarnInCsproj DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj:16 — CA1861
  • NoWarnInCsproj DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj:16 — IDE0290
  • NoWarnInCsproj DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj:16 — IDE0305
  • NoWarnInCsproj DomainModeling.Generator/DomainModeling.Generator.csproj:17 — IDE0057
  • NoWarnInCsproj DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj:17 — IDE0290
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×3
  • No assertions: Construct_WithNull_ShouldSucceed DomainModeling.Tests/Entities/Entity.SourceGeneratedIdentityTests.cs:12 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Construct_WithNull_ShouldSucceed DomainModeling.Tests/IdentityTests.cs:12 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: CompareTo_WithoutExplicitInterface_ShouldBeImplemented DomainModeling.Tests/IdentityTests.cs:188 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1
  • High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.10 — SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.10 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 79 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×10
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:37 — // TODO Enhancement: Change IList to IReadOnlyList once the former implements the latter: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/31001 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:82 — // TODO Enhancement: Change IList to IReadOnlyList once the former implements the latter: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/31001 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Entity.cs:113 — // TODO Enhancement: For table-per-type (TPT), consider having a Fruit equal a Banana if their IDs match (hard to do efficiently) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:37 — // TODO Enhancement: Change IList to IReadOnlyList once the former implements the latter: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/31001 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:82 — // TODO Enhancement: Change IList to IReadOnlyList once the former implements the latter: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/31001 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Entity.cs:113 — // TODO Enhancement: For table-per-type (TPT), consider having a Fruit equal a Banana if their IDs match (hard to do efficiently) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:37 — // TODO Enhancement: Change IList to IReadOnlyList once the former implements the latter: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/31001 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:82 — // TODO Enhancement: Change IList to IReadOnlyList once the former implements the latter: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/31001 — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling/Entity.cs:113 — // TODO Enhancement: For table-per-type (TPT), consider having a Fruit equal a Banana if their IDs match (hard to do efficiently) — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:683 — // TODO Enhancement: We could use an object initializer if there are accessible setters — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×9
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling/Attributes/SourceGeneratedAttribute.cs:11 — [Obsolete] SourceGeneratedAttribute
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling/DummyBuilder.cs:8 — [Obsolete] DummyBuilder
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling/Attributes/SourceGeneratedAttribute.cs:11 — [Obsolete] SourceGeneratedAttribute
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling/DummyBuilder.cs:8 — [Obsolete] DummyBuilder
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling/Attributes/SourceGeneratedAttribute.cs:11 — [Obsolete] SourceGeneratedAttribute
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling/DummyBuilder.cs:8 — [Obsolete] DummyBuilder
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling.Tests/ValueObjectTests.cs:1228 — [Obsolete] FullySelfImplementedValueObject
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling.Tests/WrapperValueObjectTests.cs:799 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithCallers DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:26 — [Obsolete] IsType
D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×4
  • Dead code: StringIdEntity DomainModeling.Tests/Comparisons/EnumerableComparerTests.cs:393 — NamedType StringIdEntity — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: StringBasedEntity DomainModeling.Tests/Entities/Entity.SourceGeneratedIdentityTests.cs:430 — NamedType StringBasedEntity — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: IntBasedEntity DomainModeling.Tests/Entities/Entity.SourceGeneratedIdentityTests.cs:438 — NamedType IntBasedEntity — no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: DecimalBasedEntity DomainModeling.Tests/Entities/Entity.SourceGeneratedIdentityTests.cs:446 — NamedType DecimalBasedEntity — no references found in solution.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:181 — DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:181-185 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:186-190
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:235 — DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:235-239 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:253-257
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:208 — DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:208-212 | DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:226-230
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×2
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling.Example DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj — DomainModeling.Example: 4 % XML-doc coverage (1/23).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling.Generator DomainModeling.Generator/DomainModeling.Generator.csproj — DomainModeling.Generator: 31 % XML-doc coverage (65/207).
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×2
  • TooManyMethods: ValueObject DomainModeling/ValueObject.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 528 lines, 45 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: TypeSymbolExtensions DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 304 lines, 35 methods.
D3 · God Classes · ClassTooLong · ×2
  • ClassTooLong: IdentityGenerator DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 441 lines, 4 methods.
  • ClassTooLong: WrapperValueObjectGenerator DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:0 — ClassTooLong — 420 lines, 4 methods.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×2
  • Change coupling: IdentityGenerator.cs ↔ WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs — `DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs` and `DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs` change together 62% of the time (8 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: IdentityGenerator.cs ↔ ValueObjectGenerator.cs DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs — `DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs` and `DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:63 — DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:63-75 | DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:119-132
  • Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:83 — DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:83-96 | DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:144-157
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:139 — DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:139-148 | DomainModeling/Comparisons/LookupComparer.cs:78-88
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:338 — DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:338-348 | DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:353-363
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:521 — DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:521-528 | DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:573-580
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:578 — DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:578-585 | DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:586-592
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:88 — DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:88-94 | DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:99-104 | DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:109-114
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:122 — DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:122-128 | DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:133-138 | DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:143-148
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 162) · ×1
  • IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 162) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:51 — IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode has cyclomatic complexity 162 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 144) · ×1
  • WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 144) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:40 — WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode has cyclomatic complexity 144 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 119) · ×1
  • WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 119) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:251 — WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource has cyclomatic complexity 119 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 108) · ×1
  • IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 108) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:287 — IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource has cyclomatic complexity 108 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 58) · ×1
  • DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 58) DomainModeling.Generator/DummyBuilderGenerator.cs:85 — DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource has cyclomatic complexity 58 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 55) · ×1
  • ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cyclomatic 55) DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:148 — ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource has cyclomatic complexity 55 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 48) · ×1
  • ValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cyclomatic 48) DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:32 — ValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode has cyclomatic complexity 48 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateDummyInstantiationExpression (cyclomatic 31) · ×1
  • TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateDummyInstantiationExpression (cyclomatic 31) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:639 — TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateDummyInstantiationExpression has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · EnumerableComparer.EnumerableEquals (cyclomatic 28) · ×1
  • EnumerableComparer.EnumerableEquals (cyclomatic 28) DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:78 — EnumerableComparer.EnumerableEquals has cyclomatic complexity 28 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateEqualityExpression (cyclomatic 25) · ×1
  • TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateEqualityExpression (cyclomatic 25) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:549 — TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateEqualityExpression has cyclomatic complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateHashCodeExpression (cyclomatic 24) · ×1
  • TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateHashCodeExpression (cyclomatic 24) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:504 — TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateHashCodeExpression has cyclomatic complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · LookupComparer.LookupEquals (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • LookupComparer.LookupEquals (cyclomatic 16) DomainModeling/Comparisons/LookupComparer.cs:39 — LookupComparer.LookupEquals has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters (cyclomatic 16) DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:209 — ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · git history depth insufficient · ×1
  • git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — install a full clone for reliable trend signal.
D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1
  • single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 28 commit(s) sampled).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 118) · ×1
  • WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 118) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:251 — WrapperValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource has cognitive complexity 118 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 115) · ×1
  • IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 115) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:287 — IdentityGenerator.GenerateSource has cognitive complexity 115 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 105) · ×1
  • DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 105) DomainModeling.Generator/DummyBuilderGenerator.cs:85 — DummyBuilderGenerator.GenerateSource has cognitive complexity 105 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 54) · ×1
  • ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource (cognitive 54) DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:148 — ValueObjectGenerator.GenerateSource has cognitive complexity 54 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 49) · ×1
  • IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 49) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:51 — IdentityGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode has cognitive complexity 49 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 46) · ×1
  • WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 46) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:40 — WrapperValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode has cognitive complexity 46 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateDummyInstantiationExpression (cognitive 34) · ×1
  • TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateDummyInstantiationExpression (cognitive 34) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:639 — TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateDummyInstantiationExpression has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateEqualityExpression (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateEqualityExpression (cognitive 31) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:549 — TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateEqualityExpression has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EnumerableComparer.EnumerableEquals (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • EnumerableComparer.EnumerableEquals (cognitive 30) DomainModeling/Comparisons/EnumerableComparer.cs:78 — EnumerableComparer.EnumerableEquals has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters (cognitive 30) DomainModeling/ValueObject.ValidationHelpers.cs:209 — ValueObject.ContainsNonAsciiOrNonPrintableCharacters has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateHashCodeExpression (cognitive 30) · ×1
  • TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateHashCodeExpression (cognitive 30) DomainModeling.Generator/TypeSymbolExtensions.cs:504 — TypeSymbolExtensions.CreateHashCodeExpression has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · LookupComparer.LookupEquals (cognitive 27) · ×1
  • LookupComparer.LookupEquals (cognitive 27) DomainModeling/Comparisons/LookupComparer.cs:39 — LookupComparer.LookupEquals has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • ValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode (cognitive 21) DomainModeling.Generator/ValueObjectGenerator.cs:32 — ValueObjectGenerator.TransformSyntaxNode has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D35 · Change Coupling · git history depth insufficient · ×1
  • git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — a full clone gives reliable change-coupling.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/JsonSerializationGenerator.cs:88 — DomainModeling.Generator/JsonSerializationGenerator.cs:88-105 | DomainModeling.Generator/JsonSerializationGenerator.cs:117-135
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) DomainModeling.Generator/DomainEventGenerator.cs:13 — DomainModeling.Generator/DomainEventGenerator.cs:13-24 | DomainModeling.Generator/EntityGenerator.cs:13-24 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:13-24 | DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:13-24
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/StringExtensions.cs:130 — DomainModeling.Generator/StringExtensions.cs:130-138 | DomainModeling.Generator/StringExtensions.cs:146-154
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:150 — DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:150-155 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:156-160 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:161-165 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:166-170 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:171-175 | DomainModeling.Generator/IdentityGenerator.cs:176-180
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:154 — DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:154-158 | DomainModeling.Generator/WrapperValueObjectGenerator.cs:159-164
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1
  • Off the main sequence: DomainModeling.Generator — DomainModeling.Generator: abstractness 0.06, instability 0.00, distance 0.94 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
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 — 20 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithoutCallers · ×8
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:98 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:105 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:118 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:140 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:146 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/DummyBuilderTests.cs:158 — [Obsolete] EmptyTypeDummyBuilder
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/ValueObjectTests.cs:1177 — [Obsolete] ArrayValueObject
  • ObsoleteWithoutCallers DomainModeling.Tests/ValueObjectTests.cs:1218 — [Obsolete] EmptyValueObject
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 — A codebase of over 10,000 lines of code across six projects is large enough to require explicit architectural boundaries to manage coupling risks. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:90 — "// Double nulls are already handled above" — Remove. The code structure or previous checks should make this clear; if not, refactor the code to handle nulls earlier.
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.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · early-stage repository · ×1
  • early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (28 commit(s) sampled).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
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 — 49 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×25
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:79 — #pragma warning disable CS8714 // The type cannot be used as type parameter in the generic type or method. Nullability of type argument doesn't match 'notnull' constraint. -- Was type-checked
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:118 — #pragma warning disable CS8714 // The type cannot be used as type parameter in the generic type or method. Nullability of type argument doesn't match 'notnull' constraint. -- Was type-checked
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:45 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:92 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:152 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/ParsingHelper.cs:105 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/ParsingHelper.cs:144 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:79 — #pragma warning disable CS8714 // The type cannot be used as type parameter in the generic type or method. Nullability of type argument doesn't match 'notnull' constraint. -- Was type-checked
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:118 — #pragma warning disable CS8714 // The type cannot be used as type parameter in the generic type or method. Nullability of type argument doesn't match 'notnull' constraint. -- Was type-checked
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:45 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:92 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:152 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/ParsingHelper.cs:105 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/ParsingHelper.cs:144 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:79 — #pragma warning disable CS8714 // The type cannot be used as type parameter in the generic type or method. Nullability of type argument doesn't match 'notnull' constraint. -- Was type-checked
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Comparisons/DictionaryComparer.cs:118 — #pragma warning disable CS8714 // The type cannot be used as type parameter in the generic type or method. Nullability of type argument doesn't match 'notnull' constraint. -- Was type-checked
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:45 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:92 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/FormattingHelper.cs:152 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/ParsingHelper.cs:105 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling/Conversions/ParsingHelper.cs:144 — #pragma warning disable IDE0060 // Remove unused parameter -- Required to let generated code make use of overload resolution
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling.Tests/Comparisons/EnumerableComparerTests.cs:165 — #pragma warning disable IDE0004 // Cast is not redundant, but actually changes the resolved overload
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling.Tests/EntityFramework/EntityFrameworkConfigurationGeneratorTests.cs:149 — #pragma warning disable CS8618 // Reconstitution constructor
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling.Tests/ValueObjectTests.cs:813 — #pragma warning disable xUnit2024 // Do not use boolean asserts for simple equality tests -- We are testing overloaded operators
  • Justified suppression DomainModeling.Tests/WrapperValueObjectTests.cs:844 — #pragma warning disable CS0618 // Obsolete constructor is intended for us
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×9
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.3 → 13.0.4 available.
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.3 → 13.0.4 available.
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.3 → 13.0.4 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 9.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite 9.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.12.0 → 18.6.0 available.
  • Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 3.0.1 → 3.1.5 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers 3.11.0 → 5.3.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp — Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp 4.12.0 → 5.3.0 available.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×3
  • XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling(net8.0) DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj — DomainModeling(net8.0): 82 % XML-doc coverage (86/105).
  • XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling(net7.0) DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj — DomainModeling(net7.0): 80 % XML-doc coverage (78/97).
  • XML-doc coverage: DomainModeling(net6.0) DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj — DomainModeling(net6.0): 75 % XML-doc coverage (53/71).
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 8 packages scanned; 2 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · DomainModeling.Example (Production) · ×1
  • DomainModeling.Example (Production) DomainModeling.Example/DomainModeling.Example.csproj — 6 .cs files, 201 LoC (124 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DomainModeling(net8.0) (Production) · ×1
  • DomainModeling(net8.0) (Production) DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj — 34 .cs files, 2351 LoC (1121 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DomainModeling(net7.0) (Production) · ×1
  • DomainModeling(net7.0) (Production) DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj — 34 .cs files, 2351 LoC (1121 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DomainModeling(net6.0) (Production) · ×1
  • DomainModeling(net6.0) (Production) DomainModeling/DomainModeling.csproj — 34 .cs files, 2351 LoC (1121 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DomainModeling.Tests (Test) · ×1
  • DomainModeling.Tests (Test) DomainModeling.Tests/DomainModeling.Tests.csproj — 13 .cs files, 5230 LoC (4159 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DomainModeling.Generator (Production) · ×1
  • DomainModeling.Generator (Production) DomainModeling.Generator/DomainModeling.Generator.csproj — 27 .cs files, 4679 LoC (3288 significant)
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 — 217 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 0 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 DomainModeling.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json1artifacts/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—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019ee1f1-bb78-722e-b59e-e88e29065661 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 9 · Warnings: 79 · Recommendations: 20 · Info: 49 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 19-06-2026 @ 22:12 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