Executive summary
Band capped at Weak: the weakest category (Testing, 0%) reads Critical — the cover never out-promises the category table.
Template / example. This repo declares itself a template, kata, sample or demo — code to read or copy, not operate — so the ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A and what remains is judged accordingly.
The system holds a 66% health score, indicating a workable but fragile asset. While the core logic is sound, the lack of automated verification creates significant operational risk. This standing suggests the code is easy to change now but will become costly and dangerous to modify as the team grows or requirements shift.
The system is small, containing roughly 900 lines of production code, with the vast majority being straight-line business logic rather than boilerplate. Rebuilding this from scratch would cost approximately €830 and take about one engineer a week. This low rebuild cost is a double-edged sword: it makes the system cheap to replace, but it also means there is little sunk cost protecting it from hasty, untested changes. The value at stake is not in the code volume, but in the reliability of the business rules it encodes.
The primary risk is operational fragility. With no automated tests, there is no safety net for future changes. This means every update carries a high risk of introducing defects that will only be caught by users, leading to potential outages and loss of trust. The cost of fixing bugs in production is significantly higher than in development, and the absence of a test suite means these fixes will be slow and uncertain. This directly impacts delivery speed and reliability.
A secondary concern is process maturity. The build pipeline lacks integrity checks and dependency monitoring, which exposes the system to supply-chain risks. While no critical security vulnerabilities were confirmed, the lack of automated security scanning means threats could go undetected. Additionally, the absence of a changelog makes it difficult to track what has shipped, complicating support and compliance efforts. These gaps increase the cognitive load on engineers and slow down safe deployment.
On the positive side, the architecture is clean and well-structured, with high scores in code health and domain modeling. The code is easy to read and understand, which is a strong foundation for future work. However, this structural quality is undermined by the lack of verification.
The highest-leverage action is to implement automated tests. This single step will provide the most immediate return by reducing defect rates and increasing confidence in changes. It is the critical first step to stabilizing the system and enabling faster, safer delivery. Without this, other improvements will have limited impact.
Code Health
77%
Adequate · gated by X5
Architecture
100% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
82% ★
Exemplary
Readiness
47%
Adequate · gated by D9
Security
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% · 47% weightCode Health 77% · 26% weightMaturity 82% · 14% weightArchitecture 100% · 8% weightSecurity 100% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 47 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 66 → ~77.
Code composition — where the lines go
Plumbing 100%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €280–€1,400
| Cost to rebuild | €280–€1,400 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 66% quality) |
| Size & shape | Hobby · effort split not classified for 700 line(s) outside the .NET model (the tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
| Effort basis | The rebuild estimate prices 848 code lines. Comment-only lines count toward the 903-line size but are not build effort. |
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
2
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
3
Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
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.
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
9.3
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X12 · Repo
Unreachable branch
10.0
X13 · Repo
Undrained process stream
10.0
X16 · Repo
Unfloored truncation loop
10.0
X18 · Repo
Disposal-pattern correctness
10.0
X19 · Repo
Unrestored process-global state
10.0
X20 · Repo
Mistyped argument guard
10.0
X21 · Repo
Side-effecting pattern guard
10.0
X22 · Repo
Contradicted release guard
10.0
X23 · Repo
Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
10.0
X25 · Repo
Inert configuration knob
10.0
X26 · Repo
Unsynchronised callback handoff
10.0
X27 · Repo
Collection changed while being enumerated
10.0
X28 · Repo
Index access outside its own emptiness guard
10.0
X29 · Repo
Per-element action decided by a fixed element
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X30 · Repo
Support guard that admits what it rejects
10.0
X32 · Repo
Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Security
The Good
D28 · .NET / C#
Secrets (history)
10.0
D29 · .NET / C#
Static Analysis (SAST)
10.0
D30 · .NET / C#
Dependency Vulnerabilities
10.0
D44 · .NET / C#
Platform End-of-Life
10.0
X14 · Repo
Bypassable address classification
10.0
X15 · Repo
Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
10.0
X17 · Repo
Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
10.0
X24 · Repo
Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
10.0
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 1 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, resolve the missing test finding in Test Distribution and enable nullable reference types across all projects to eliminate warnings. Next, establish a changelog to track release contents and add a testing section to the root README for clarity. Finally, configure CI/CD to run the test suite explicitly and gate merges on its success to ensure code quality.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +18.2 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +17.7 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it. | +7.1 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`. | +4.1 pts | Medium | Nullable reference types |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +2.5 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place. | +2.5 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. | +1.4 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Program.cs. | +0.5 pts | Low | Comment Value |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| src/PlainAardvarkRendering/Program.fs | 7.8 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) |
| src/WalkThroughSceneGraph/DynamicSceneData.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) |
| src/MovingAardvark/Program.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) |
| src/IncrementalSystem-CSharp/Program.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
How the grades work
Critical — 1
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 5
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 8
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 6
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 50 of 54 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 54 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D9D13D14D15D17D19D21D24D26D28D29D30D35D44AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1IC1M1M3M4P1P6X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5
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, 8 of 14 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 |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | 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
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository's projects (.fs) are MSBuild/NuGet projects and their `<PackageReference>` dependencies are exactly what this dimension assesses — but `dotnet list package` returned no packages for them, so there was nothing to assess. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED. This is a gap in the analysis run (restore or project-load failed for these projects), not a verdict about this repository.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Too few commits for a meaningful bus factor (48 commit(s) sampled, fewer than the 50 this dimension needs before a bus factor means anything).
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (700 lines, 78% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
- D27 Navigability — evaluation did not complete — Navigability not included (check did not complete) — excluded from the score.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (48 commit(s) sampled).
- D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
- P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- 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.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- 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.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
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
4 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (25 lines × 2)src/WalkThroughSceneGraph/DynamicSceneData.fs:10
Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2)src/PlainAardvarkRendering/Program.fs:62
Duplicated block (11–15 lines × 3)src/PlainAardvarkRendering/Program.fs:28
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2)src/MovingAardvark/Program.fs:27
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DynamicSceneData.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Program.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (11–15 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Program.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
2 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test suite 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?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 62 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 1 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 61 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 203 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (78% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README gives a high-level overview of the Aardvark Platform ecosystem (its purpose, links to the wiki, and an explicit mention that this is a guided walkthrough examples/lecture notes repo), plus a short description of each central resource (Aardvark.Base, Aardvark.Rendering) with links. It also documents several packages (data/aardvark/, FuzzySharp, Newtonsoft.Json, Silk.NET.Core/Silk.NET.GLFW/Utz.Native.GLFW) as READMEs for their own directories rather than the root repo, and ends with a short 'About this package' section for each of them. The architecture/design docs and XML-doc coverage are absent from the visible text.
XML-doc coverage: PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharpsrc/PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp/PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp.csproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 7.0/10. — The repository's root README gives a high-level overview of the Aardvark Platform ecosystem (its purpose, links to the wiki, and an explicit mention that this is a guided walkthrough examples/lecture notes repo), plus a short description of each central resource (Aardvark.Base, Aardvark.Rendering) with links. It also documents several packages (data/aardvark/, FuzzySharp, Newtonsoft.Json, Silk.NET.Core/Silk.NET.GLFW/Utz.Native.GLFW) as READMEs for their own directories rather than the root repo, and ends with a short 'About this package' section for each of them. The architecture/design docs and XML-doc coverage are absent from the visible text.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 21 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
21 valuable / 1 redundant across 28 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commentsrc/IncrementalSystem-CSharp/Program.cs:24
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 2 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
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)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. 1 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.
REDACTED
What to do
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 1 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies in any ecosystem this repository declares.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 8 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
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?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). — src/PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp/Program.cs:9
What to do
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
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 2 of 2 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
What to do
- Start a test surface where your build system looks for one (tests/, test/, spec/, or your ecosystem's test source set) — the separation follows from putting the first tests in the right place.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step for your stack, and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X12 · Unreachable branch
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream
Do you agree with this assessment?
X14 · Bypassable address classification
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
Do you agree with this assessment?
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
Do you agree with this assessment?
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
Do you agree with this assessment?
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X22 · Contradicted release guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
Do you agree with this assessment?
X25 · Inert configuration knob
Do you agree with this assessment?
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/2 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 77% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 82% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Readiness | 47% | Adequate — gated by D9 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
Not evidenced — 2 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 62 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
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
- 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 were found in the analyzed repository to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — No test suite was found to re-run, so reliability couldn't be assessed. Two searches produced that zero and both came back empty: the classifier that reads the loaded workspace recognised no suite it could run, and a walk of the source on disk — which covers the JS/TS `*.test.*` and `*.spec.*` conventions and probes for a Pester suite — found no test source in any other ecosystem either. Neither search reaches a suite that is missing from the loaded workspace and carries no name either walk recognises, so this is 'no suite found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read
- D16 Bus Factor — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 903 LoC across two projects the codebase is tiny and single-purpose, so explicit bounded contexts are unnecessary. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. 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"]`.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — Navigability not included (check did not complete)
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP/RB/RS/ERL/EX/EXS class graph only — this repository's production source is .fs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample; tests are deferred to the application built from it, so coverage is not scored here.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (2 value object(s))
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Structured logging, tracing/metrics and health checks 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.
- 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.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- 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.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 1 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
Serious — 5 finding(s)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (25 lines × 2) src/WalkThroughSceneGraph/DynamicSceneData.fs:10
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (17–18 lines × 2) src/PlainAardvarkRendering/Program.fs:62
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11–15 lines × 3) src/PlainAardvarkRendering/Program.fs:28
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/MovingAardvark/Program.fs:27
Minor — 7 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/IncrementalSystem-CSharp/Program.cs:24
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D8 · Code Coverage
- No tests — template/sample
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- Commented-out code src/PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp/Program.cs:9
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No changelog
X5 · Nullable reference types
- Nullable reference types not enabled everywhere
Minor — 1 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp src/PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp/PlainAardvarkRendering-CSharp.csproj
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-bbf160a3035d4390ad58472d812a0420/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-bbf160a3035d4390ad58472d812a0420/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 1 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list src/Walkthrough.sln 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, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure 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 | — |
| 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 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |