library-management-system — Watchdog Audit

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.

ahmed-ramsey-shahin/library-management-system carries serious risk (36%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Code Health (92%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Event-Driven (90%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (21%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Maturity (23%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience); EnsureCreated() with EF migrations so the production schema can… (Schema migrations).

For scale: Small (~15,609 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (92%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 92% ★ Exemplary Architecture 79% Strong Maturity 23% ⚠ Critical · gated by M1, M2, M4 Readiness 21% ⚠ Critical · gated by D8, D9, P3, P5, P7, P8 Security 61% Adequate · gated by D36, C1 Domain Modelling 70% Adequate · gated by DM2 Event-Driven 90% 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.

Readiness 21% · 46% weightMaturity 23% · 25% weightSecurity 61% · 14% weightDomain Modelling 70% · 8% weightArchitecture 79% · 4% weightEvent-Driven 90% · 2% weightCode Health 92% · 1% weight

Raise Readiness 21 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 36 → ~47.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 34%Plumbing 66%

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €12,000–€62,000

Cost to rebuild	€12,000–€62,000 (0.1–0.4 person-years (201–648 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Very high — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 36% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 49% boilerplate · 17% straight-line · 34% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€37,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 21% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.9) — service/app, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS, domain model, 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.

Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.

+11.7 pts · Low effort · Code Coverage

Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.

+11.7 pts · Low effort · Test Distribution

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

+12.9 pts · Medium effort · DR & Backup

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 21%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (15,609 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 21%

→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory

The headline is improving steadily (+6.2 pts/run over 6 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.

Evidence: trajectory: +6.2 pts/run over 6 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 36 ▲ 1 over 6 runs.

OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain ModellingEvent-Driven

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.

At a glance — Code Health · 92% · Exemplary

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 8.8 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 7.8 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 10.0 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 9.9 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 D39 · .NET / C# IL Efficiency 9.9 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 9.9 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 7.7

At a glance — Architecture · 79% · Strong

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 8.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.3 D27 · .NET / C# Navigability 8.0 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.4 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 9.7 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Bad

D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 5.0 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 5.7

At a glance — Maturity · 23% · Critical · gated by M1, M2, M4

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 8.0

The Bad

D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 6.8

The Ugly

D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 0.0 D20 · .NET / C# ADR Quality 0.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 3.5 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 0.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 21% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P3, P5, P7, P8

The Good

D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 9.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 8.5 P2 · Repo Observability 8.0

The Bad

P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 5.0

The Ugly

D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 0.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 0.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 3.0

At a glance — Security · 61% · Adequate · gated by D36, C1

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 9.4 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 9.3 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 7.5

The Bad

S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 6.5

The Ugly

D36 · .NET / C# Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 0.0 C1 · Repo Data Protection 3.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 70% · Adequate · gated by DM2

The Good

DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0

The Ugly

DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 90% · Strong

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED2 · Repo Event/command shape 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 9.8 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 7.6

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 category	Findings	Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration	3	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	1	High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a robust disaster recovery strategy by codifying backups and geo-recovery in infrastructure-as-code, while clearly documenting recovery time and objectives. Next, harden the application against external failures by implementing HTTP client resilience policies to prevent flaky dependencies from causing outages. Then, replace automatic schema creation with explicit Entity Framework migrations to ensure safe and reproducible database evolution. Finally, improve system visibility by adding a root README for onboarding and starting an architecture decision record to capture key design choices.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.	+11.7 pts	Low	Code Coverage
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.	+11.7 pts	Low	Test Distribution
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.	+12.9 pts	Medium	DR & Backup
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+12.8 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Replace EnsureCreated() with EF migrations so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.	+12.8 pts	Medium	Schema migrations
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+6.3 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects.	+11.9 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.	+11.9 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 14 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 36% mixed · 64% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
Dockerfile	5.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 35)
src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cyclomatic 26)
src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 20)
src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs	7.8	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 19)
src/Lms.Domain/Common/Results/Result.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
src/Lms.Infrastructure/BackgroundJobInitializer.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Interceptors/AuditableEntityInterceptor.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: AuditableEntityInterceptor.UpdateEntities (cognitive 28)
src/Lms.Api/DependencyInjection.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: DependencyInjection.SeedDatabase (cognitive 19)
src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/RenewBook/RenewBookCommandHandler.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: RenewBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 18)
src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateLibrarian/CreateLibrarianCommandHandler.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: CreateLibrarianCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 18)
src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/AcceptBorrowRecord/AcceptBorrowRecordCommandHandler.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cognitive Complexity: AcceptBorrowRecordCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 16)
src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs	8.5	Near-clean	Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5)
src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Configurations/BookConfiguration.cs	9.5	Near-clean	IL Efficiency: IL efficiency: 6 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget

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. 63 of 67 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 67 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D39AX1AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX7AX9C1C2C3DM2DM5DM6DM8ED1ED2ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P5P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

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, 29 of 63 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.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.301	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f1328-b891-78e0-a765-efcdf7dee6e8.

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.

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.
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.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
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.
C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). 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 Complexity8.8 / 10Strong✓ 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 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle at 35.

CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 35)src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs:18

DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cyclomatic 26)src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs:13

UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 20)src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs:17

BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 19)src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs:22

What to do

Resolve the 1 CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 35) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with CreateBookCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cyclomatic 26) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with DatabaseSeeder.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 20) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity7.8 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData at 61.

DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cognitive 61)src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs:13

CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 59)src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs:18

UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 34)src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs:17

AuditableEntityInterceptor.UpdateEntities (cognitive 28)src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Interceptors/AuditableEntityInterceptor.cs:10

BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 26)src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs:22

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 1 DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cognitive 61) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with DatabaseSeeder.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 59) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with CreateBookCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 34) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 duplicated block group(s) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: Lms.Domain

What to do

Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.3 / 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 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 17 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5)src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:7

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.

Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

No automated tests — the solution has no test code.

No automated tests

What to do

Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No test projects found.

No tests found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

20 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol · ×20

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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 28 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Top hotspots: src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs (6×19=114); src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs (1×35=35); src/Lms.Domain/Catalog/Book.cs (2×15=30)

Hotspot: src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs · ×5src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 15609 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.9.

BarePragmaDisable · ×2src/Lms.Domain/Common/Results/Result.cs:31

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

4 projects, 468 .cs files, 15609 hand-written lines of code (15609 production / 0 test), 6 inter-project edges.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

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

All four READMEs and the XML documentation for Lms.Api/Lms.Application/Lms.Domain/Lms.Infrastructure are missing; none is present in any visible path. The absence of documentation means users cannot read a one-line project summary or understand how to use the API, configure the application, or navigate the domain model.

XML-doc coverage: Lms.Api · ×4src/Lms.Api/Lms.Api.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 0.0/10. — All four READMEs and the XML documentation for Lms.Api/Lms.Application/Lms.Domain/Lms.Infrastructure are missing; none is present in any visible path. The absence of documentation means users cannot read a one-line project summary or understand how to use the API, configure the application, or navigate the domain model.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

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

12 valuable / 0 redundant across 37 sampled comments.

What to do

Improve Comment Value — currently 3.5/10. — 12 valuable / 0 redundant across 37 sampled comments.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion5.0 / 10Adequate✓ 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 5.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 4 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Lms.Application

What to do

Resolve the 1 Split Lms.Application finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

98 % of calls cross a namespace and 20 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

Improve Navigability — currently 8.0/10. — 98 % of calls cross a namespace and 20 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.1detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

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

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 1 low.

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×2Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness6.8 / 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 6.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

21 of 72 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs.

Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions

No build provenance

No artifact signing

No SBOM

What to do

Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D39 · IL Efficiency9.9 / 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 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 of 1214 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 6 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetsrc/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Configurations/BookConfiguration.cs:11

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition7.4 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation9.7 / 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.

`IAppDbContext` declares 42 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IAppDbContext.cs:9

What to do

Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX7 · Slice cohesion5.7 / 10Adequate✓ 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.

`BookDto` (slice 'Books') depends on `PublisherDto` from slice 'Publishers'. — BookDto.cs:10

What to do

Keep slices independent: share cross-slice needs via an explicit contract/shared-kernel, not direct references between slices.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C1 · Data Protection3.0 / 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.

No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.

Method: Roslyn scan: audit-trail mechanism graded (SaveChanges interceptor/immutable AuditLog/[Audited] strong; bare IAuditable/AddAuditing weak). Deterministic.

An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an immutable audit-log / audit-trail type to write to, [Audited] per-entity coverage.

What to do

Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

`BorrowRequestAcceptedEvent.BorrowRequestId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRequestId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:5
`BorrowRequestRejectedEvent.BorrowRequestId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRequestId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:6
`BookReturnedEvent.BorrowRecordId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRecordId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:7
`BookRenewedEvent.BorrowRecordId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRecordId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:8
`BorrowRecordMarkedAsLateEvent.BorrowRecordId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRecordId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:9
`FinePaidEvent.FineId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct FineId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:10
`FinePaidEvent.BorrowRecordId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRecordId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:10
`BorrowRecordMarkedAsLostEvent.BorrowRecordId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BorrowRecordId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:11
`UserSuspended.UserId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct UserId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:5
`UserActivated.UserId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct UserId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:6
`CategoryAdded.UserId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct UserId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:7
`CategoryAdded.CategoryId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CategoryId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:7
`CategoryRemoved.UserId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct UserId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:8
`CategoryRemoved.CategoryId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CategoryId { Guid Value }`). — Events.cs:8

What to do

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED3 · Event naming9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

`DomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainEvent.cs:5

What to do

Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write7.6 / 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.

`CreateAudienceCommandHandler` writes to the database while `BorrowRecordMarkedAsLostEventHandler` publishes to the message bus in the same command-handling flow, with no outbox referenced on either path. Splitting the persist and the publish across sibling methods (or two collaborating actors) doesn't make them atomic — a crash between the two either loses the message or emits a phantom event. Use the transactional outbox pattern so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — CreateAudienceCommandHandler.cs:14

What to do

Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.

No README at the repository root — newcomers have no entry point.

What to do

Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects.
Add a README to the 4 of 4 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy2.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

There is no README, so nothing documents what the system is or how it works.

What to do

Add a README describing the system, how to build/run it, and keep it current.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (dotnet test / npm test / pytest / a test job) was matched — the gate may be running tests, or "test" may be incidental (a path, "latest", a reporter). Make the test step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.

What to do

Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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 2/3 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.
Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.

What to do

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`EnsureCreated()` builds the schema once and can't evolve it — there's no upgrade path for an existing production database, and it bypasses the migrations history. Use EF migrations (`dotnet ef migrations add` + `Migrate()` on startup) so schema changes are versioned and applied safely. — DependencyInjection.cs:174

What to do

Replace EnsureCreated() with EF migrations so the production schema can evolve safely and reproducibly.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation9.9 / 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 239/241 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. (×2) — UsersController.cs:135, DependencyInjection.cs:166

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types7.7 / 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.

~2.9 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	92%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Architecture	79%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	23%	Critical — gated by M1, M2, M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	21%	Critical — gated by D8, D9, P3, P5, P7, P8	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	61%	Adequate — gated by D36, C1	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	70%	Adequate — gated by DM2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	90%	Strong	Solid.

Not included — 37 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.
AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
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.
D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 15k LoC the codebase is small despite four projects, so its size alone makes it not need boundaries.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
DM1 Aggregate boundaries — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM4 Rich vs anemic model — no entities detected — rich-vs-anemic model not assessable
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
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 — 4 finding(s)

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×2

High IaC: DS-0002 Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
High IaC: DS-0029 Dockerfile — 'apt-get' missing '--no-install-recommends'

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1

High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.1 — Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.1 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D8 · Code Coverage · No automated tests · ×1

No automated tests — No automated tests — the solution has no test code. Untested code is the largest single risk to changing it safely.

Warning — 24 finding(s)

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · Hotspot · ×5

Hotspot: src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs — src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs changed 6 times in last 90 days, max complexity 19. 4 of those changes were fix/bug commits — a defect-dense hotspot worth prioritising.
Hotspot: src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs — src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs changed 1 times in last 90 days, max complexity 35.
Hotspot: src/Lms.Domain/Catalog/Book.cs src/Lms.Domain/Catalog/Book.cs — src/Lms.Domain/Catalog/Book.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 15. 1 of those changes were fix/bug commits — a defect-dense hotspot worth prioritising.
Hotspot: src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs — src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs changed 1 times in last 90 days, max complexity 26.
Hotspot: src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs — src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs changed 1 times in last 90 days, max complexity 20.

D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×2

BarePragmaDisable src/Lms.Domain/Common/Results/Result.cs:31 — #pragma warning disable IDE0051
BarePragmaDisable src/Lms.Infrastructure/BackgroundJobInitializer.cs:29 — #pragma warning disable RCS1213, IDE0051

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 35) · ×1

CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 35) src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs:18 — CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle has cyclomatic complexity 35 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cyclomatic 26) · ×1

DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cyclomatic 26) src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs:13 — DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData has cyclomatic complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 20) · ×1

UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 20) src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs:17 — UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cyclomatic 19) src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs:22 — BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1

single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 262 commit(s) sampled).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cognitive 61) · ×1

DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData (cognitive 61) src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/DatabaseSeeder.cs:13 — DatabaseSeeder.GenerateAllMockData has cognitive complexity 61 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 59) · ×1

CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 59) src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/CreateBook/CreateBookCommandHandler.cs:18 — CreateBookCommandHandler.Handle has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 34) · ×1

UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 34) src/Lms.Application/Features/Books/Commands/UpdateBookDetails/UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.cs:17 — UpdateBookDetailsCommandHandler.Handle has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AuditableEntityInterceptor.UpdateEntities (cognitive 28) · ×1

AuditableEntityInterceptor.UpdateEntities (cognitive 28) src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Interceptors/AuditableEntityInterceptor.cs:10 — AuditableEntityInterceptor.UpdateEntities has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 26) · ×1

BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 26) src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/BorrowBook/BorrowBookCommandHandler.cs:22 — BorrowBookCommandHandler.Handle has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DependencyInjection.SeedDatabase (cognitive 19) · ×1

DependencyInjection.SeedDatabase (cognitive 19) src/Lms.Api/DependencyInjection.cs:166 — DependencyInjection.SeedDatabase has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · RenewBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 18) · ×1

RenewBookCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 18) src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/RenewBook/RenewBookCommandHandler.cs:20 — RenewBookCommandHandler.Handle has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CreateLibrarianCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 18) · ×1

CreateLibrarianCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 18) src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateLibrarian/CreateLibrarianCommandHandler.cs:19 — CreateLibrarianCommandHandler.Handle has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AcceptBorrowRecordCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 16) · ×1

AcceptBorrowRecordCommandHandler.Handle (cognitive 16) src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Commands/AcceptBorrowRecord/AcceptBorrowRecordCommandHandler.cs:20 — AcceptBorrowRecordCommandHandler.Handle has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1

Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: Lms.Domain — Lms.Domain: abstractness 0.10, instability 0.00, distance 0.90 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1

Low cohesion: User (LCOM4 5) src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:7 — User's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.

Recommendation — 10 finding(s)

D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1

Test reliability not included — No test projects found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.

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.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Lms.Application · ×1

Split Lms.Application — A generic catch-all name that is huge (9k LoC) and sprawls over 142 namespaces despite being large. Suggested: by namespace: LMS.Authentication, LMS.Messaging, LMS.Reporting

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1

Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1

Further orphaned files (smaller) — 21 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than listed individually (21 orphaned of 72 analysed files in total).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1

No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1

No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1

No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).

D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1

IL efficiency: 6 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Configurations/BookConfiguration.cs:11 — 6 of 1214 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: Lms.Infrastructure.Data.Configurations.BookConfiguration.Configure @ src/Lms.Infrastructure/Data/Configurations/BookConfiguration.cs:11, 857 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 9.9/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.

D9 · Test Distribution · No tests found · ×1

No tests found — No test projects found in the repository.

Info — 25 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×20

Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.3 → 1.16.0 available.
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Prometheus.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.Prometheus.AspNetCore 1.15.3-beta.1 → Not available.
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting — OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting 1.15.3 → 1.16.0 available.
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore 1.15.2 → 1.16.0 available.
Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http — OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http 1.15.1 → 1.16.0 available.
Outdated: Scalar.AspNetCore — Scalar.AspNetCore 2.14.11 → 2.16.6 available.
Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore 10.1.7 → 10.2.3 available.
Outdated: libphonenumber-csharp — libphonenumber-csharp 9.0.29 → 9.0.33 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: BCrypt.Net-Next — BCrypt.Net-Next 4.1.0 → 4.2.0 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization — Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authorization 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer — Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Hybrid 10.5.0 → 10.7.0 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.SqlServer — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.SqlServer 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.StackExchangeRedis — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.StackExchangeRedis 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http — Microsoft.Extensions.Http 10.0.7 → 10.0.9 available.
Outdated: Serilog.Sinks.Seq — Serilog.Sinks.Seq 9.0.0 → 9.1.0 available.

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×4

XML-doc coverage: Lms.Api src/Lms.Api/Lms.Api.csproj — Lms.Api: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/196).
XML-doc coverage: Lms.Application src/Lms.Application/Lms.Application.csproj — Lms.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/879).
XML-doc coverage: Lms.Domain src/Lms.Domain/Lms.Domain.csproj — Lms.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/398).
XML-doc coverage: Lms.Infrastructure src/Lms.Infrastructure/Lms.Infrastructure.csproj — Lms.Infrastructure: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/96).

D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1

No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	0	—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list LibraryManagementSystem.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	1	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	3	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: 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	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.	0	—

Run 019f1328-b891-78e0-a765-efcdf7dee6e8 · 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 — 75 field(s) across 4 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.

Name — 33 field(s)

ChangeUserDetailsRequest.FirstName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/ChangeUserDetailsRequest.cs:4
ChangeUserDetailsRequest.LastName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/ChangeUserDetailsRequest.cs:5
CreateAdminRequest.FirstName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateAdminRequest.cs:6
CreateAdminRequest.LastName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateAdminRequest.cs:7
CreateLibrarianRequest.FirstName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateLibrarianRequest.cs:6
CreateLibrarianRequest.LastName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateLibrarianRequest.cs:7
CreateMemberRequest.FirstName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateMemberRequest.cs:6
CreateMemberRequest.LastName src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateMemberRequest.cs:7
BorrowRecordDto.FullName src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Dto/BorrowRecordDto.cs:18
ChangeUserDetailsCommand.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/ChangeUserDetails/ChangeUserDetailsCommand.cs:8
ChangeUserDetailsCommand.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/ChangeUserDetails/ChangeUserDetailsCommand.cs:9
CreateAdminCommand.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateAdmin/CreateAdminCommand.cs:9
CreateAdminCommand.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateAdmin/CreateAdminCommand.cs:10
CreateLibrarianCommand.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateLibrarian/CreateLibrarianCommand.cs:9
CreateLibrarianCommand.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateLibrarian/CreateLibrarianCommand.cs:10
CreateMemberCommand.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:9
CreateMemberCommand.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:10
AdminDto.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/AdminDto.cs:9
AdminDto.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/AdminDto.cs:10
LibrarianDto.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianDto.cs:10
LibrarianDto.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianDto.cs:11
LibrarianSummaryDto.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianSummaryDto.cs:9
LibrarianSummaryDto.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianSummaryDto.cs:10
MemberDto.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberDto.cs:12
MemberDto.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberDto.cs:13
MemberSummaryDto.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberSummaryDto.cs:9
MemberSummaryDto.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberSummaryDto.cs:10
UserDto.FirstName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/UserDto.cs:9
UserDto.LastName src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/UserDto.cs:10
User.FirstName src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:11
User.LastName src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:12
UserErrors.FirstNameRequired src/Lms.Domain/Identity/UserErrors.cs:9
UserErrors.LastNameRequired src/Lms.Domain/Identity/UserErrors.cs:10

Email — 20 field(s)

CreateAdminRequest.Email src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateAdminRequest.cs:5
CreateLibrarianRequest.Email src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateLibrarianRequest.cs:5
CreateMemberRequest.Email src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateMemberRequest.cs:5
ApplicationErrors.EmailInvalid src/Lms.Application/Common/Errors/ApplicationErrors.cs:59
ApplicationErrors.EmailIsUsed src/Lms.Application/Common/Errors/ApplicationErrors.cs:64
BorrowRecordDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Dto/BorrowRecordDto.cs:19
CreateAdminCommand.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateAdmin/CreateAdminCommand.cs:8
CreateLibrarianCommand.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateLibrarian/CreateLibrarianCommand.cs:8
CreateMemberCommand.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:8
AdminDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/AdminDto.cs:8
LibrarianDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianDto.cs:9
LibrarianSummaryDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianSummaryDto.cs:8
MemberDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberDto.cs:11
MemberSummaryDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberSummaryDto.cs:8
UserDto.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/UserDto.cs:8
GenerateTokensQuery.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Queries/GenerateTokens/GenerateTokensQuery.cs:7
GetUserByEmailQuery.Email src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Queries/GetUserByEmail/GetUserByEmailQuery.cs:7
User.Email src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:10
UserErrors.EmailRequired src/Lms.Domain/Identity/UserErrors.cs:15
EmailService._senderEmail src/Lms.Infrastructure/Services/EmailService.cs:11

Phone — 13 field(s)

ChangeUserDetailsRequest.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/ChangeUserDetailsRequest.cs:6
CreateAdminRequest.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateAdminRequest.cs:8
CreateLibrarianRequest.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateLibrarianRequest.cs:8
CreateMemberRequest.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Api/Dtos/Requests/CreateMemberRequest.cs:8
ApplicationErrors.PhoneNumberInvalid src/Lms.Application/Common/Errors/ApplicationErrors.cs:60
ApplicationErrors.PhoneNumberIsUsed src/Lms.Application/Common/Errors/ApplicationErrors.cs:65
FluentValidationExtensions._phoneUtil src/Lms.Application/Common/FluentValidationExtensions.cs:8
ChangeUserDetailsCommand.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/ChangeUserDetails/ChangeUserDetailsCommand.cs:10
CreateAdminCommand.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateAdmin/CreateAdminCommand.cs:11
CreateLibrarianCommand.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateLibrarian/CreateLibrarianCommand.cs:11
CreateMemberCommand.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Commands/CreateMember/CreateMemberCommand.cs:11
User.PhoneNumber src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:13
UserErrors.PhoneNumberRequired src/Lms.Domain/Identity/UserErrors.cs:11

Financial (card / IBAN) — 9 field(s)

BorrowRecordDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/BorrowRecords/Dto/BorrowRecordDto.cs:20
AdminDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/AdminDto.cs:12
LibrarianDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianDto.cs:13
LibrarianSummaryDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/LibrarianSummaryDto.cs:12
MemberDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberDto.cs:15
MemberSummaryDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/MemberSummaryDto.cs:12
UserDto.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Application/Features/Users/Dtos/UserDto.cs:11
User.LibraryCardNumber src/Lms.Domain/Identity/User.cs:15
UserErrors.LibraryCardNumberRequired src/Lms.Domain/Identity/UserErrors.cs:13

Ahmed-Ramsey-Shahin/library-Management-System

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Trajectory

Architecture — module dependency graph

At a glance — Code Health · 92% · Exemplary

At a glance — Architecture · 79% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 23% · Critical · gated by M1, M2, M4

At a glance — Readiness · 21% · Critical · gated by D8, D9, P3, P5, P7, P8

At a glance — Security · 61% · Adequate · gated by D36, C1

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 70% · Adequate · gated by DM2

At a glance — Event-Driven · 90% · Strong

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts