Executive summary
Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.
TuralSuleymani/production-ready-DDD-EDA-Azure carries serious risk (59%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (47%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (66%) 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: 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution (Test Distribution); Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like… (Observability); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation).
For scale: Small (~2,372 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
82%
Strong
Architecture
83%
Strong
Maturity
66%
Strong
Readiness
47%
Adequate · gated by D9
Security
69%
Strong
Domain Modelling
68%
Adequate · gated by DM2
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 66% · 25% weightDomain Modelling 68% · 14% weightSecurity 69% · 8% weightCode Health 82% · 4% weightArchitecture 83% · 2% weight
Raise Readiness 47 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 59 → ~68.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 27%Plumbing 73%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,600–€8,200
| Cost to rebuild | €1,600–€8,200 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 59% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 50% boilerplate · 24% straight-line · 27% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,900 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 47% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
2
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
3
Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Id.cs, OpsOrderListProjectorHostedService.cs.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 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.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain
9 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. The rest can wait behind it.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+5.4 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain Modelling
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
8.7
D39 · .NET / C#
IL Efficiency
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
9.5
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.7
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
9.8
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX2 · Repo
Stateful singletons
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX9 · Repo
CQS / query purity
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
The Ugly
Roadmap
First, resolve the single missing test case to ensure test coverage is complete. Next, extend structured logging across all service-like projects to improve production diagnosability. Then, begin recording significant architectural decisions in an ADR log. After that, update the README to accurately reflect the project's actual structure and remove references to non-existent Docker files. Finally, add a testing section to the root README to clarify how to run the test suite.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +10.7 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production. | +10.7 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Id.cs, OpsOrderListProjectorHostedService.cs. | +1.9 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Resolve the 1 The Getting Started section lists prerequisites, Cosmos DB databases and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. | +1.2 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +2.1 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests. | +2.1 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +1.9 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it. | +1.8 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The Getting Started section lists prerequisites, Cosmos DB databases and containers, configuration (appsettings + user secrets), and running the API and Worker but does not mention Azure App Configuration or Key Vault integration that is referenced in later sections of the outline. |
| src/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common/Id.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Infrastructure/ChangeFeed/OpsOrderListProjectorHostedService.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
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. 48 of 51 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.
What we checked — 51 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D35D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX9DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P2S1X1X2X3X4X5
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, 9 of 32 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 | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ 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 | ✓ 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
- 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.
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 (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.
- 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.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
6 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Domain
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling 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?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 9 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
12 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Outdated: Azure.Identity
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 18 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2372 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
6 projects, 93 .cs files, 2372 hand-written lines of code (2372 production / 0 test), 14 inter-project edges.
Thin analysable surface across projects
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The README is an excellent international talk source code document for a high-scale event-driven order management system built on Azure Cosmos DB. It clearly states the purpose (high-scale, event-driven systems using transactional batch, change feed, partition-aware modeling), defines the bounded context with its four main features, and follows a consistent real-architecture outline (features, clean architecture overview, interaction flows, DDD notes, patterns, tech stack, getting started). The content is rich in detail for an API/worker project but does not yet show any XML documentation coverage. It is well written and structured for the audience of someone who wants to run the code without reading a full design doc.
The Getting Started section lists prerequisites, Cosmos DB databases and containers, configuration (appsettings + user secrets), and running the API and Worker but does not mention Azure App Configuration or Key Vault integration that is referenced in later sections of the outline.README.md
XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common src/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The Getting Started section lists prerequisites, Cosmos DB databases and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
1 valuable / 2 redundant across 7 sampled comments; 2 shown with locations.
redundant comment src/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common/Id.cs:7
What to do
- Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Id.cs, OpsOrderListProjectorHostedService.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
89 % of calls cross a namespace and 3 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
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)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency
0 of 181 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `DomainEvent.AggregateId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AggregateId { Guid Value }`). — DomainEvent.cs:7
- `IDomainEvent.AggregateId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct AggregateId { Guid Value }`). — IDomainEvent.cs:12
- `Order.OrderId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrderId { String Value }`). — Order.cs:39
- `Order.CustomerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { String Value }`). — Order.cs:40
- `OrderCancelledEvent.OrderId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrderId { String Value }`). — OrderCancelledEvent.cs:11
- `OrderPlacedEvent.OrderId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrderId { String Value }`). — OrderPlacedEvent.cs:26
- `OrderPlacedEvent.CustomerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { String Value }`). — OrderPlacedEvent.cs:27
- `OrderShippedEvent.OrderId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrderId { String Value }`). — OrderShippedEvent.cs:11
What to do
- Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
- `AggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — AggregateRoot.cs:3
What to do
- Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
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 a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- 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 test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists
- README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists; README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 1/5 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
What to do
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
- Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×7) — ChangeFeedProcessorBootstrap.cs:15, ChangeFeedProcessorBootstrap.cs:23, ChangeFeedProcessorBootstrap.cs:31, …
What to do
- Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- ~0.6 `!` 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 `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 82% | Strong | Solid. |
| Architecture | 83% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 66% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 47% | Adequate — gated by D9 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 69% | Strong | Solid. |
| Domain Modelling | 68% | Adequate — gated by DM2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 49 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.
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- 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 — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
- 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.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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 — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 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 — 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 — 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 and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — No tests — template/sample
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 6 CQRS handler(s)
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
- 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
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Warning — 2 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Domain
Recommendation — 9 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common/Id.cs:7
- redundant comment src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Infrastructure/ChangeFeed/OpsOrderListProjectorHostedService.cs:131
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The Getting Started section lists prerequisites, Cosmos DB databases and containers, configuration (appsettings + user secrets), and running the API and Worker but does not mention Azure App Configuration or Key Vault integration that is referenced in later sections of the outline. README.md
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D8 · Code Coverage
- No tests — template/sample
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 21 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Azure.Identity
- Outdated: FluentValidation
- Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Azure.Cosmos
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common src/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common/VOEConsulting.Flame.Domain.Common.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Api src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Api/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Api.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Application src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Application/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Application.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Domain src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Domain/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Domain.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Infrastructure src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Infrastructure/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Infrastructure.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Worker src/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Worker/VOEConsulting.Flame.OrderManagement.Worker.csproj
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
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 auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list OrderManagement.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 0 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | 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 Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | 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 & Signing | provenance | — | 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 Policy | disclosure | — | 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 Vulnerabilities | osv-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 | — |