Public report of abdalkreembzoor/Travel-and-Accommodation-Booking-Platform, published 27 June 2026. It has the same score, grades and number of findings as the full report. The details of security findings (where they are in the code, which known vulnerabilities and which passwords or keys were found) are left out, so nobody can use them against the project.
Watchdogby Canine Development 27-06-2026 @ 08:09 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Abdalkreembzoor/Travel-And-Accommodation-Booking-Platform

No regression coverage not measured
53% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
lower third — near Weak
Event-Driven 88% Strong Architecture 80% Adequate Code Health 76% Strong Security 67% Adequate Readiness 45% Weak Maturity 44% Weak

Small · 13,770 LoC · 5 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (44%)

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

56/56dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0
32findings with an exact file:lineof 129 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
56/96dimensions across the health lenses13770 LoC · 5 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

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

abdalkreembzoor/Travel-and-Accommodation-Booking-Platform carries serious risk (53%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Event-Driven (88%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Architecture (80%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (44%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Readiness (45%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality (ADR Quality); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure).

For scale: Small (~13,770 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (88%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 76% Strong Architecture 80% Adequate · gated by D26 Maturity 44% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 45% Weak · gated by D12, P3 Security 67% Adequate Event-Driven 88% Strong
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.
Maturity 44% · 46% weightReadiness 45% · 25% weightSecurity 67% · 14% weightCode Health 76% · 8% weightArchitecture 80% · 4% weightEvent-Driven 88% · 2% weight

Raise Maturity 44 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 53 → ~59.

Code composition — where the lines go Plumbing-heavy — business logic is 8% of hand-written app code; most lines are wiring, declarations and straight-line glue. Fine for an integration/CRUD service; worth a look if this is meant to be logic-rich.
Business logic 6%Plumbing 64%Tests 1%Generated 28%
New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-21) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D8 · Coverage not measured
  • SC1 · NuGet dependencies are not locked

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €5,200–€26,000
Cost to rebuild€5,200–€26,000 (0.1–0.2 person-years (87–269 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityHigh — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 53% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · 51% boilerplate · 41% straight-line · 8% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€15,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 44% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.7) — service/app, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+8.4 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+7.5 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
3
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+7.0 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 44%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (13,770 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 44%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+17.3 pts/run over 3 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +17.3 pts/run over 3 runs

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

arch TABP.Api Api TABP.Application Application TABP.Api->TABP.Application TABP.Infrastructure Infrastructure TABP.Api->TABP.Infrastructure TABP.Domain Domain TABP.Application->TABP.Domain TABP.Infrastructure->TABP.Domain

At a glance — Code Health · 76% · Strong

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 9.9 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 9.7 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 7.1 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 9.8 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 8.9
The Ugly
X4 · Repo Structured logging 4.3

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Adequate · gated by D26

The Good
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 9.4 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 9.3 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 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Ugly
D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 2.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.0

At a glance — Maturity · 44% · Weak · gated by M2

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D16 · .NET / C# Bus Factor 8.5 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.3
The Bad
D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 5.6 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 6.0
The Ugly
D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 45% · Weak · gated by D12, P3

The Good
D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# REDACTED Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0
The Ugly
D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 2.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 4.9 P2 · Repo Observability 4.8 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0

At a glance — Security · 67% · Adequate

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 9.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 8.4 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0
The Bad
S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.5
The Ugly
C1 · Repo Data Protection 4.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 88% · Strong

The Good
ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.3

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components4High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures2High / Critical

Roadmap

Top priorities: Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality; Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale; Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+8.4 ptsLowADR Quality
Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+7.5 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+7.0 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+8.4 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.+8.0 ptsMediumFolder & project structure
Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.+7.6 ptsMediumObservability
Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.+7.6 ptsMediumIdempotency
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+6.7 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 8 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 50% mixed · 50% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs7.2MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: CountryRepository.cs ↔ RoomRepository.cs
REDACTED7.2MixedSecrets (history): REDACTED: REDACTED
TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs7.4MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: CityRepository.cs ↔ CountryRepository.cs
TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs7.8MixedChange Coupling: Change coupling: RoleRepository.cs ↔ RoomCategoryRepository.cs
TABP.Api/Validators/RoomsCategories/RoomCategoryUpdateDtoValidator.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)
TABP.Api/Validators/Bookings/BookingRequestDtoValidator.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)
TABP.Api/Validators/Countries/CountryRequestDtoValidator.cs8.5Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 11)
TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/HotelRepository.cs8.5Near-cleanChange Coupling: Change coupling: HotelRepository.cs ↔ RoleRepository.cs

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. 56 of 56 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 56 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D20D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX7AX8AX9C1C2ED1ED2ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3P1P2P3P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 32 of 129 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f081f-f6e8-74f6-9646-c144d322c827.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 REDACTED Scanning: REDACTED detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • 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.
  • 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.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (2): D20, ED5. For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

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

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

3 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2)TABP.Api/Validators/RoomsCategories/RoomCategoryUpdateDtoValidator.cs:10
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2)TABP.Api/Validators/Bookings/BookingRequestDtoValidator.cs:11
Duplicated block (9 lines × 11)TABP.Api/Validators/Countries/CountryRequestDtoValidator.cs:9

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

0 of 37 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

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

11 test methods: 11 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 11 tests.

Mock framework: Moq

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

39 outdated, 4 vulnerable, 3 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: MailKit · ×4
Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features · ×3
Outdated: CloudinaryDotNet · ×39

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · REDACTED Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

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

REDACTED scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

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

0 of 38 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

25 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is TABP.Api/Extensions/MappingExtension.cs, held by abdalkreembzoor@gmail.com.

Small-team knowledge concentration
Off-boarding risk: abdalkreembzoor@gmail.com

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Small-team knowledge concentration finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 deducted debt markers + 1 dead symbols across 12503 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

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

5 projects, 525 .cs files, 12794 hand-written lines of code (12503 production / 291 test), plus 5505 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 9 inter-project edges.

TABP.Infrastructure (Production)TABP.Infrastructure/TABP.Infrastructure.csproj
TABP.Domain (Production)TABP.Domain/TABP.Domain.csproj
TABP.Application (Production)TABP.Application/TABP.Application.csproj
TABP.Api (Production)TABP.Api/TABP.Api.csproj
TABP.Tests (Test)TABP.Tests/TABP.Tests.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D26 · Project Cohesion2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Large project: TABP.Application · ×2

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Large project finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

97 % of calls cross a namespace and 6 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED
REDACTED

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 2 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness5.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

13 of 37 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is TABP.Api/Extensions/MappingExtension.cs.

Orphaned knowledge · ×13TABP.Api/Extensions/MappingExtension.cs

What to do

  1. Resolve the 13 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with BookingConfiguration.cs, CreateBookingCommandHandler.cs, DiscountProfile.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Strongest change-coupling: CityRepository.cs↔CountryRepository.cs 80%; RoleRepository.cs↔RoomCategoryRepository.cs 70%; HotelRepository.cs↔RoleRepository.cs 70%

Change coupling: CityRepository.cs ↔ CountryRepository.cs · ×10TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D39 · IL Efficiency9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

59 of 4483 methods have an oversized IL body.

Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Users.Profile.UserProfile..ctor · ×20
IL measured

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX10 · Code composition4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AX7 · Slice cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.

Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.

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

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

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

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C1 · Data Protection4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

What to do

  • Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED2 · Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

  • `CreateBookingCommandHandler.Handle` writes to the database AND publishes to the message bus in the same flow, with no outbox referenced in this path. These two writes aren't atomic — a crash between them either loses the message (DB committed, publish failed) or emits a phantom event (publish succeeded, DB rolled back). Use the transactional outbox pattern (e.g. MassTransit's EF/Marten outbox) so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — CreateBookingCommandHandler.cs:53

What to do

  • Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ED5 · Idempotency4.9 / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

  • `Create.CreateAmenityCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateAmenityCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `Delete.DeleteAmenityCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — DeleteAmenityCommandHandler.cs:26
  • `Update.UpdateAmenityCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateAmenityCommandHandler.cs:23
  • `Create.CreateBookingCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateBookingCommandHandler.cs:53
  • `Delete.DeleteBookingCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — DeleteBookingCommandHandler.cs:27
  • `Create.CreateCountryCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateCountryCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `Update.UpdateCountryCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateCountryCommandHandler.cs:23
  • `Create.CreateDiscountCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateDiscountCommandHandler.cs:27
  • `Delete.DeleteDiscountCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — DeleteDiscountCommandHandler.cs:21
  • `Create.CreateHotelCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateHotelCommandHandler.cs:27
  • `Create.CreateOwnerCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateOwnerCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `Delete.DeleteOwnerCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — DeleteOwnerCommandHandler.cs:21
  • `Update.UpdateOwnerCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateOwnerCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `Create.CreatePaymentCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreatePaymentCommandHandler.cs:31
  • `Delete.DeletePaymentCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — DeletePaymentCommandHandler.cs:25
  • `Update.UpdatePaymentCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdatePaymentCommandHandler.cs:31
  • `Create.CreateReviewCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateReviewCommandHandler.cs:34
  • `Delete.DeleteReviewCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — DeleteReviewCommandHandler.cs:21
  • `Update.UpdateReviewCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateReviewCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `Create.CreateRoleCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateRoleCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `Update.UpdateRoleCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateRoleCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `Create.CreateRoomCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateRoomCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `Update.UpdateRoomCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateRoomCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `Create.CreateRoomCategoryCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateRoomCategoryCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `Update.UpdateRoomCategoryCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateRoomCategoryCommandHandler.cs:24
  • `Create.CreateUserCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — CreateUserCommandHandler.cs:31
  • `Register.RegisterGuestCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — RegisterGuestCommandHandler.cs:37
  • `Update.UpdateUserCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateUserCommandHandler.cs:30
  • `Update.UpdateBookingCommandHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — UpdateBookingCommandHandler.cs:37

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

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

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

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

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P2 · Observability4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Only 1/4 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.
P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

S1 · Web-Security Posture6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • 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 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.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness7.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×9) — RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs:33, RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs:35, RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs:36, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 269/276 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×7) — RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs:39, RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs:53, RabbitMQEmailPublisher.cs:34, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X4 · Structured logging4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. — ActivityLogFilter.cs:42

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • ~1.4 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health76%StrongSolid.
Architecture80%Adequate — gated by D26Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity44%Weak — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness45%Weak — gated by D12, P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security67%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Event-Driven88%StrongStrongest area.
Not included — 41 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D19 Documentation Quality — LLM dimension skipped
  • D21 Naming Consistency — LLM dimension skipped
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — LLM dimension skipped
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — small single-context codebase (12,503 production LoC) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size
  • D24 Comment Value — LLM dimension skipped
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — REDACTED
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — REDACTED
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — REDACTED
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — REDACTED
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — REDACTED
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — REDACTED
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
  • ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • M4 Documentation accuracy — LLM not available — accuracy is the Tier-2 layer and needs a reachable model.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • 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
  • 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)

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

Issue — 7 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×4
  • Vulnerable: MailKit — REDACTED — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: MimeKit — REDACTED — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: AutoMapper — REDACTED — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: AutoMapper — REDACTED — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
Warning — 32 finding(s)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×13
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Api/Extensions/MappingExtension.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Bookings/Commands/Create/CreateBookingCommandHandler.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Infrastructure/Services/ImageService.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Extentions/FluentValidationExtentions.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Users/Profile/UserProfile.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Infrastructure/MessagesBrokers/RabbitMQ/RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Hotels/Profile/HotelProfile.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Rooms/Profile/RoomProfile.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Discounts/Profile/DiscountProfile.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Infrastructure/MessagesBrokers/RabbitMQ/RabbitMQEmailPublisher.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Infrastructure/Configurations/BookingConfiguration.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Reviews/Profile/ReviewProfile.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge TABP.Application/Features/Hotels/Commands/Update/UpdateHotelCommandHandler.cs — No living knowledge remains for this file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×10
  • Change coupling: CityRepository.cs ↔ CountryRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs` change together 80% of the time (8 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: RoleRepository.cs ↔ RoomCategoryRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoomCategoryRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: HotelRepository.cs ↔ RoleRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/HotelRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/HotelRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CountryRepository.cs ↔ RoomRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoomRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CountryRepository.cs ↔ RoomCategoryRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoomCategoryRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CountryRepository.cs ↔ RoleRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: RoleRepository.cs ↔ RoomRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoomRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CityRepository.cs ↔ RoleRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoleRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CountryRepository.cs ↔ HotelRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CountryRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/HotelRepository.cs` change together 70% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
  • Change coupling: CityRepository.cs ↔ RoomRepository.cs TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs — `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/CityRepository.cs` and `TABP.Infrastructure/Repositories/RoomRepository.cs` change together 64% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×3
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Features 5.0.17 — Other,Legacy
  • Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore — FluentValidation.AspNetCore 11.3.0 — Legacy
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×2
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) TABP.Api/Validators/RoomsCategories/RoomCategoryUpdateDtoValidator.cs:10 — TABP.Api/Validators/RoomsCategories/RoomCategoryUpdateDtoValidator.cs:10-19 | TABP.Api/Validators/Users/UserUpdateDtoValidator.cs:10-24
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) TABP.Api/Validators/Bookings/BookingRequestDtoValidator.cs:11 — TABP.Api/Validators/Bookings/BookingRequestDtoValidator.cs:11-20 | TABP.Api/Validators/Cities/CityRequestDtoValidator.cs:12-21
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 11) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 11) TABP.Api/Validators/Countries/CountryRequestDtoValidator.cs:9 — TABP.Api/Validators/Countries/CountryRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Discounts/DiscountRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Hotels/HotelRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/HotelsAmenities/HotelAmenityRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Payments/PaymentRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Reviews/ReviewRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Roles/RoleRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Rooms/RoomRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/RoomsAmenities/RoomAmenityRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/RoomsCategories/RoomCategoryRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17 | TABP.Api/Validators/Users/UserRequestDtoValidator.cs:9-17
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 39 finding(s)
D39 · IL Efficiency · Oversized method · ×20
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Users.Profile.UserProfile..ctor — TABP.Application.Features.Users.Profile.UserProfile..ctor compiles to 760 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Bookings.Commands.Create.CreateBookingCommandHandler/<Handle>d__12.MoveNext — TABP.Application.Features.Bookings.Commands.Create.CreateBookingCommandHandler/<Handle>d__12.MoveNext compiles to 733 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Hotels.Profile.HotelProfile..ctor — TABP.Application.Features.Hotels.Profile.HotelProfile..ctor compiles to 730 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Rooms.Profile.RoomProfile..ctor — TABP.Application.Features.Rooms.Profile.RoomProfile..ctor compiles to 616 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.InitialMigrationAfterDeletingAllThePrevious.Up — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.InitialMigrationAfterDeletingAllThePrevious.Up compiles to 601 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Discounts.Profile.DiscountProfile..ctor — TABP.Application.Features.Discounts.Profile.DiscountProfile..ctor compiles to 562 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Hotels.Commands.Update.UpdateHotelCommandHandler/<Handle>d__6.MoveNext — TABP.Application.Features.Hotels.Commands.Update.UpdateHotelCommandHandler/<Handle>d__6.MoveNext compiles to 551 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Hotels.Commands.Delete.DeleteHotelCommandHandler/<Handle>d__3.MoveNext — TABP.Application.Features.Hotels.Commands.Delete.DeleteHotelCommandHandler/<Handle>d__3.MoveNext compiles to 540 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Repositories.HotelRepository/<GetFeaturedDeals>d__9.MoveNext — TABP.Infrastructure.Repositories.HotelRepository/<GetFeaturedDeals>d__9.MoveNext compiles to 536 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Reviews.Profile.ReviewProfile..ctor — TABP.Application.Features.Reviews.Profile.ReviewProfile..ctor compiles to 508 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Owners.Commands.Update.UpdateOwnerCommandHandler/<Handle>d__6.MoveNext — TABP.Application.Features.Owners.Commands.Update.UpdateOwnerCommandHandler/<Handle>d__6.MoveNext compiles to 502 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AddImageTable.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AddImageTable.BuildTargetModel compiles to 484 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AppDbContextModelSnapshot.BuildModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AppDbContextModelSnapshot.BuildModel compiles to 484 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Application.Features.Users.Commands.Delete.DeleteUserCommandHandler/<Handle>d__3.MoveNext — TABP.Application.Features.Users.Commands.Delete.DeleteUserCommandHandler/<Handle>d__3.MoveNext compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AddIndexRoleTableRoleNameColumn.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AddIndexRoleTableRoleNameColumn.BuildTargetModel compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AddSeedDataForRolesTable.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.AddSeedDataForRolesTable.BuildTargetModel compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.InitialMigrationAfterDeletingAllThePrevious.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.InitialMigrationAfterDeletingAllThePrevious.BuildTargetModel compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.ModifyThePasswordLength.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.ModifyThePasswordLength.BuildTargetModel compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.ModifyThePasswordLengthToBeMax.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.ModifyThePasswordLengthToBeMax.BuildTargetModel compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
  • Oversized method: TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.RemoveCitiesRelationWithUsers.BuildTargetModel — TABP.Infrastructure.Migrations.RemoveCitiesRelationWithUsers.BuildTargetModel compiles to 471 IL instructions — too large to inline; consider splitting the hot path.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Large project · ×2
  • Large project: TABP.Application — 3997 LoC, 178 public types across 100 namespaces — review for cohesion.
  • Large project: TABP.Api — 5179 LoC, 204 public types across 39 namespaces — review for cohesion.
D16 · Bus Factor · Small-team knowledge concentration · ×1
  • Small-team knowledge concentration — 25 file(s) are concentrated to one author — the ambient state with 2 active author(s), not 25 separate risks. The signal becomes meaningful as ownership spreads; no per-file action implied now.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: abdalkreembzoor@gmail.com — If abdalkreembzoor@gmail.com becomes unavailable, 25 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner — the largest single-person knowledge concentration (weighted toward the domain core). Pair, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · small single-context codebase (12,503 production LoC) · ×1
  • small single-context codebase (12,503 production LoC) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size — small single-context codebase (12,503 production LoC) — bounded contexts are not needed at this size Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D24 · Comment Value · LLM dimension skipped · ×1
  • LLM dimension skipped — This dimension requires a reachable LLM provider; configure/start one to evaluate it.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D31 · IaC & Container Security · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 51 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×39
  • Outdated: CloudinaryDotNet — CloudinaryDotNet 1.27.4 → 1.29.2 available.
  • Outdated: MailKit — REDACTED → 4.17.0 available.
  • Outdated: MassTransit — MassTransit 8.4.0 → 9.1.2 available.
  • Outdated: MassTransit.RabbitMQ — MassTransit.RabbitMQ 8.4.0 → 9.1.2 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer 8.0.13 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore 8.0.13 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 9.0.1 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 9.0.1 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 9.0.1 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer 9.0.1 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools 9.0.1 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: MimeKit — REDACTED → 4.17.0 available.
  • Outdated: RabbitMQ.Client — RabbitMQ.Client 7.1.2 → 7.2.1 available.
  • Outdated: CloudinaryDotNet — CloudinaryDotNet 1.27.4 → 1.29.2 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore 8.0.13 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: AutoMapper — REDACTED → 16.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation — FluentValidation 11.11.0 → 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: MediatR — MediatR 12.4.1 → 14.1.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer 8.0.13 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Mvc — Asp.Versioning.Mvc 8.1.0 → 10.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Asp.Versioning.Mvc.ApiExplorer — Asp.Versioning.Mvc.ApiExplorer 8.1.0 → 10.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: AutoMapper — REDACTED → 16.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation — FluentValidation 11.11.0 → 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore — FluentValidation.AspNetCore 11.3.0 → 11.3.1 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions — FluentValidation.DependencyInjectionExtensions 11.11.0 → 12.1.1 available.
  • + 14 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: Moq — TABP.Tests references Moq.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 38 packages scanned; 4 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · TABP.Infrastructure (Production) · ×1
  • TABP.Infrastructure (Production) TABP.Infrastructure/TABP.Infrastructure.csproj — 61 .cs files, 10503 LoC (8125 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · TABP.Domain (Production) · ×1
  • TABP.Domain (Production) TABP.Domain/TABP.Domain.csproj — 75 .cs files, 869 LoC (664 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · TABP.Application (Production) · ×1
  • TABP.Application (Production) TABP.Application/TABP.Application.csproj — 177 .cs files, 4866 LoC (3974 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · TABP.Api (Production) · ×1
  • TABP.Api (Production) TABP.Api/TABP.Api.csproj — 205 .cs files, 6443 LoC (4259 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · TABP.Tests (Test) · ×1
  • TABP.Tests (Test) TABP.Tests/TABP.Tests.csproj — 7 .cs files, 357 LoC (290 significant)
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL measured · ×1
  • IL measured — 4483 methods; 59 oversized (> 250 IL); 98 boxing ops.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 11 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 0 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .1artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list "Travel and Accommodation Booking Platform.sln" package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json4artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — 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 NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019f081f-f6e8-74f6-9646-c144d322c827 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 44 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Email — 17 field(s)
  • LoginRequestDto.Email TABP.Api/DTOs/Authentication/LoginRequestDto.cs:4
  • RegisterGuestRequestDto.Email TABP.Api/DTOs/Authentication/RegisterGuestRequestDto.cs:8
  • UserCreationDto.Email TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserCreationDto.cs:5
  • UserRequestDto.Email TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserRequestDto.cs:8
  • UserResponseDto.Email TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserResponseDto.cs:7
  • UserUpdateDto.Email TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserUpdateDto.cs:7
  • CreateUserCommand.Email TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Create/CreateUserCommand.cs:7
  • LoginCommand.Email TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Login/LoginCommand.cs:6
  • RegisterGuestCommand.Email TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Register/RegisterGuestCommand.cs:8
  • UpdateUserCommand.Email TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Update/UpdateUserCommand.cs:8
  • UserResponse.Email TABP.Application/Features/Users/Shared/UserResponse.cs:6
  • User.Email TABP.Domain/Entities/User.cs:8
  • EmailRequest.ToEmails TABP.Domain/Models/EmailRequest.cs:4
  • EmailSettings.FromEmail TABP.Domain/Models/EmailSettings.cs:9
  • IUserSession.Email TABP.Domain/Services/IUserSession.cs:6
  • RabbitMQEmailConsumer._emailService TABP.Infrastructure/MessagesBrokers/RabbitMQ/RabbitMQEmailConsumer.cs:17
  • UserSession.Email TABP.Infrastructure/Services/UserSession.cs:29
Phone — 17 field(s)
  • HotelCreationDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Hotels/HotelCreationDto.cs:8
  • HotelRequestDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Hotels/HotelRequestDto.cs:11
  • HotelResponseDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Hotels/HotelResponseDto.cs:10
  • HotelUpdateDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Hotels/HotelUpdateDto.cs:10
  • OwnerCreationDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Owners/OwnerCreationDto.cs:4
  • OwnerRequestDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Owners/OwnerRequestDto.cs:7
  • OwnerResponseDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Owners/OwnerResponseDto.cs:6
  • OwnerUpdateDto.Phone TABP.Api/DTOs/Owners/OwnerUpdateDto.cs:6
  • ValidationMessages.PhoneNumberIsNotValid TABP.Application/Extentions/FluentValidationExtentions.cs:85
  • CreateHotelCommand.Phone TABP.Application/Features/Hotels/Commands/Create/CreateHotelCommand.cs:10
  • UpdateHotelCommand.Phone TABP.Application/Features/Hotels/Commands/Update/UpdateHotelCommand.cs:11
  • HotelResponse.Phone TABP.Application/Features/Hotels/Shared/HotelResponse.cs:9
  • CreateOwnerCommand.Phone TABP.Application/Features/Owners/Commands/Create/CreateOwnerCommand.cs:6
  • UpdateOwnerCommand.Phone TABP.Application/Features/Owners/Commands/Update/UpdateOwnerCommand.cs:7
  • OwnerResponse.Phone TABP.Application/Features/Owners/Shared/OwnerResponse.cs:5
  • Hotel.Phone TABP.Domain/Entities/Hotel.cs:11
  • Owner.Phone TABP.Domain/Entities/Owner.cs:5
Date of birth — 10 field(s)
  • RegisterGuestRequestDto.DateOfBirth TABP.Api/DTOs/Authentication/RegisterGuestRequestDto.cs:10
  • UserCreationDto.DateOfBirth TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserCreationDto.cs:7
  • UserRequestDto.DateOfBirth TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserRequestDto.cs:10
  • UserResponseDto.DateOfBirth TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserResponseDto.cs:9
  • UserUpdateDto.DateOfBirth TABP.Api/DTOs/Users/UserUpdateDto.cs:9
  • CreateUserCommand.DateOfBirth TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Create/CreateUserCommand.cs:9
  • RegisterGuestCommand.DateOfBirth TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Register/RegisterGuestCommand.cs:10
  • UpdateUserCommand.DateOfBirth TABP.Application/Features/Users/Commands/Update/UpdateUserCommand.cs:10
  • UserResponse.DateOfBirth TABP.Application/Features/Users/Shared/UserResponse.cs:8
  • User.DateOfBirth TABP.Domain/Entities/User.cs:10

Issues: 7 · Warnings: 32 · Recommendations: 39 · Info: 51 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 27-06-2026 @ 08:09 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md