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.
ThreeDotsLabs/watermill is sound in substance but carries real gaps (66%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Event-Driven (100%) is solid too.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (47%) — 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.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version> (Release Hygiene); Nothing pauses a release for a human (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: Small (~14,817 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.
Code Health
92% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
100% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
72%
Strong
Readiness
47%
Weak · gated by P5
Security
84%
Strong
Event-Driven
100% ★
Exemplary
Event Sourcing
100% ★
Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 47% · 46% weightMaturity 72% · 25% weightSecurity 84% · 14% weightCode Health 92% · 8% weightArchitecture 100% · 4% weightEvent-Driven 100% · 2% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 1% weight
Raise Readiness 47 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 66 → ~76.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (24+)
- D4 · Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (17 lines × 7) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) _examples/pubsubs/sql/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/exactly-once-delivery-counter/server/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) components/cqrs/command_processor.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) components/cqrs/command_processor.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) components/cqrs/event_processor.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/persistent-event-log/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) dev/update-examples-deps/main.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/server-sent-events/server/http.go
- D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) _examples/pubsubs/nats-core/main.go
- D38 · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] tools/mill/go.mod
- D38 · High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] tools/mill/go.mod
- D38 · Medium vulnerability: GO-2026-5774 go.mod
- D38 · Medium vulnerability: GO-2026-5841 tools/mill/go.mod
- D38 · Medium CVE: GO-2026-5158 tools/mill/go.mod
- D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] tools/mill/go.mod
- D38 · Medium CVE: GO-2026-5970 tools/mill/go.mod
- D38 · Medium CVE: GO-2025-3955 dev/validate-examples/go.mod
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €16,000–€83,000
| Cost to rebuild | €16,000–€83,000 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 66% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€49,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 47% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
2
Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
3
Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 47%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Event-Driven
At a glance — Event Sourcing
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 8 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 5 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, codify disaster recovery by documenting RTO/RPO and restore procedures in IaC, as persistence guards alone are insufficient. Second, stamp versions in build manifests or tag releases with semver to ensure traceability. Third, add an approval gate to deployment pipelines to prevent bad builds from reaching users. Fourth, record significant architectural decisions in a structured document. Finally, add a testing section to the root README to clarify how to run the test suite.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +16.1 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable. | +15.8 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +9.1 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +4.0 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). | +4.7 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +4.6 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 4 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with pr-examples.yml (3), postgres.go. | +1.2 pts | Low | Static Analysis (SAST) |
| Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with go.mod. | +0.6 pts | Low | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| tools/mill/go.mod | 1.9 | Slop | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| .github/workflows/pr-examples.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main.main (cyclomatic 34) |
| _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main.main (cyclomatic 16) |
| tools/pq/backend/postgres.go | 7.2 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: string-formatted-query |
| _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go | 7.4 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) |
| dev/update-examples-deps/main.go | 7.8 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: main.main (cognitive 19) |
| _examples/pubsubs/nats-core/main.go | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) |
| components/cqrs/command_processor.go | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) |
| message/router/middleware/randomfail.go | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: math-random-used |
| go.mod | 7.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium vulnerability: GO-2026-5774 |
| dev/validate-examples/go.mod | 7.9 | Mixed | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Medium CVE: GO-2025-3955 |
| dev/consolidate-gomods/main.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: main.main (cognitive 19) |
| message/router/middleware/retry.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: Retry.Middleware (cognitive 17) |
| dev/validate-examples/main.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: main.validate (cognitive 16) |
| components/requestreply/backend_pubsub.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: PubSubBackend.ListenForNotifications (cognitive 16) |
| _examples/pubsubs/sql/main.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) |
| _examples/real-world-examples/exactly-once-delivery-counter/server/main.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) |
| components/cqrs/event_processor.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) |
| _examples/real-world-examples/persistent-event-log/main.go | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 27 of 28 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 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.
What we checked — 28 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D13D15D16D21D28D29D31D33D34D35D38AX5ED1ED4ES1M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P5P6
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 39 of 45 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D30 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.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- 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").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- 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.
- 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").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was main.main at 34.
main.main (cyclomatic 34)_examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go:25
main.main (cyclomatic 16)_examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:24
What to do
- Resolve the 1 main.main (cyclomatic 34) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with main.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 main.main (cyclomatic 16) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with main.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
7 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was main.main at 47.
main.main (cognitive 19) dev/update-examples-deps/main.go:17
main.main (cognitive 47)_examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go:25
Retry.Middleware (cognitive 17)message/router/middleware/retry.go:74
main.main (cognitive 16)_examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:24
main.validate (cognitive 16)dev/validate-examples/main.go:74
What to do
- Resolve the 2 main.main (cognitive 19) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with main.go (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 main.main (cognitive 47) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with main.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Retry.Middleware (cognitive 17) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with retry.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
17 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) _examples/pubsubs/nats-core/main.go:30
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:86
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/persistent-event-log/main.go:53
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/server-sent-events/server/http.go:351
Duplicated block (18 lines × 2)_examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go:29
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 1 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pr-examples.yml:13
Medium: math-random-usedmessage/router/middleware/randomfail.go:4
What to do
- Resolve the 4 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with pr-examples.yml (3), postgres.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with randomfail.go. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
trivy and checkov found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
18 of 31 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is tools/mill/cmd/googlecloud.go.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
8 finding(s): 1 critical, 1 high, 6 medium, 0 low.
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted]tools/mill/go.mod
High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted]tools/mill/go.mod
Medium CVE: GO-2026-5158 tools/mill/go.mod
Medium vulnerability: GO-2026-5774 go.mod
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with go.mod. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with go.mod. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with go.mod (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES1 · Fold determinism
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 29 of 42 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.4 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
What to do
- Stamp a version in your build/package manifest (e.g. csproj <Version>, package.json, pyproject.toml, Cargo.toml, or a VERSION file) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 92% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 72% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 47% | Weak — gated by P5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 84% | Strong | Solid. |
| Event-Driven | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Event Sourcing | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Not included — 72 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~9509 lines of test source are present (.go) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Go module (go.mod/go.sum) and package.json), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.go, .py) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Go module (go.mod/go.sum) and package.json — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is mostly .go, .py, which this pass does not read, so cohesion was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.go) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (1 of 2 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 13 aggregate root(s) (types guarding their own state behind command methods — this language has no AggregateRoot base to inherit)
- ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
- ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES2 Immutable events — no persisted event types detected — immutability check not applicable
- ES3 PII in the event store — no persisted event types detected — PII-in-events check not applicable
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`go test -coverprofile=coverage.out ./...`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 6 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pr-examples.yml:13
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pr-examples.yml:47
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/pr-examples.yml:48
- High: string-formatted-query tools/pq/backend/postgres.go:85
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] tools/mill/go.mod
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] tools/mill/go.mod
Warning — 34 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: GO-2026-5158 tools/mill/go.mod
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] tools/mill/go.mod
- Medium CVE: GO-2026-5970 tools/mill/go.mod
- Medium CVE: GO-2025-3955 dev/validate-examples/go.mod
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main.main (cognitive 19) dev/update-examples-deps/main.go:17
- main.main (cognitive 19) dev/consolidate-gomods/main.go:13
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium vulnerability: GO-2026-5774 go.mod
- Medium vulnerability: GO-2026-5841 tools/mill/go.mod
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) _examples/pubsubs/nats-core/main.go:30
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:103
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:86
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) components/cqrs/command_processor.go:207
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/persistent-event-log/main.go:53
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) dev/update-examples-deps/main.go:151
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/server-sent-events/server/http.go:351
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) _examples/pubsubs/nats-core/main.go:19
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main.main (cyclomatic 34) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go:25
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main.main (cyclomatic 16) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:24
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main.main (cognitive 47) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go:25
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Retry.Middleware (cognitive 17) message/router/middleware/retry.go:74
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main.main (cognitive 16) _examples/real-world-examples/delayed-messages/main.go:24
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main.validate (cognitive 16) dev/validate-examples/main.go:74
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- PubSubBackend.ListenForNotifications (cognitive 16) components/requestreply/backend_pubsub.go:126
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Medium: math-random-used message/router/middleware/randomfail.go:4
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (18 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go:29
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (17 lines × 7) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go:102
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 4) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go:91
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 3) _examples/pubsubs/sql/main.go:58
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/exactly-once-delivery-counter/server/main.go:71
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 3) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/newsletter-service/main.go:164
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) components/cqrs/command_processor.go:224
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) components/cqrs/event_processor.go:340
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) _examples/real-world-examples/consumer-groups/crm-service/main.go:110
Recommendation — 3 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 5 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| 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 Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 8 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |