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.
andreapavoni/parabellum carries serious gaps (42%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Event Sourcing (100%) — its event log is trustworthy to replay. Architecture (100%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (22%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Accessibility (47%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage).
For scale: Medium (~57,245 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event Sourcing foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
69%
Adequate
Architecture
100% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
64%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
22% ⚠
Critical · gated by R4, R6, P3, P5
Security
65%
Adequate · gated by D29, D36
Domain Modelling
78%
Adequate · gated by DM2
Event Sourcing
100% ★
Exemplary
Accessibility
47%
Weak · gated by AC4
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 22% · 45% weightAccessibility 47% · 25% weightMaturity 64% · 14% weightSecurity 65% · 8% weightCode Health 69% · 4% weightDomain Modelling 78% · 2% weightArchitecture 100% · 1% weightEvent Sourcing 100% · 1% weight
Raise Readiness 22 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 42 → ~58.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (8+)
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_2 Dockerfile
- R10 · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/pages/ReportsPage.tsx
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/components/ResourceFieldsMap.tsx
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/components/buildings/HeroMansionBuilding.tsx
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 3 locations) frontend/src/components/buildings/MarketplaceBuilding.tsx
- R10 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) frontend/src/components/buildings/RallyPointBuilding.tsx
- R10 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 3 locations) frontend/src/components/buildings/buildingCards.tsx
- R4 · Test Coverage
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €17,000–€84,000
| Cost to rebuild | €17,000–€84,000 |
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 42% quality) |
| Size & shape | Medium · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
| Dead frontend code | ~1 LoC unreachable (1 file(s)) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€50,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 22% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
2
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
3
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 22%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Event Sourcing
At a glance — Accessibility
The Bad
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 8 | High / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 2 | Medium |
Roadmap
First, integrate static analysis and dependency scanning into the CI pipeline to automatically fail builds containing security regressions. Next, codify disaster recovery and backup procedures in infrastructure-as-code to ensure a documented and tested restore process. Then, expand test coverage to include all unreached production modules. After that, add linting and type-checking scripts to the build process and enforce them in CI. Finally, implement health checks and immutable image tags to enable reliable deployments and quick rollbacks.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +17.1 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +17.1 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +17.1 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +16.8 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding. | +16.3 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +16.3 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies. | +9.1 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href. | +5.7 pts | Medium | Keyboard semantics |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/docker_hub.yml | 2.7 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/ci.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: buildings::building_detail (cyclomatic 52) |
| parabellum_game/models/village.rs | 7.2 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: Village::validate_building_construction (cognitive 21) |
| Dockerfile | 7.2 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_2 |
| parabellum_game/battle.rs | 7.4 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: Battle::calculate_battle (cyclomatic 20) |
| parabellum_infra/seed/mod.rs | 7.4 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: seed::run_seed (cognitive 20) |
| parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: VillageAggregate::apply (cyclomatic 64) |
| parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: battles::build_attack_outcome (cyclomatic 29) |
| parabellum_web/api/actions.rs | 7.8 | Mixed | God Classes: FileTooLong: api/actions.rs |
| parabellum_app/villages/state.rs | 7.8 | Mixed | God Classes: TooManyMethods: VillageState |
| parabellum_game/models/army.rs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: army.rs ↔ common.rs |
| parabellum_game/models/map.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cyclomatic Complexity: map::generate_new_map (cyclomatic 26) |
| parabellum_infra/es/repositories/scheduled_actions/queries.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: queries::apply_scheduled_action_filter (cognitive 16) |
| parabellum_game/models/smithy.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: models/smithy.rs |
| parabellum_game/models/buildings.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: models/buildings.rs |
| parabellum_app/application/game.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyMethods: GameApplication |
| parabellum_infra/es/consumers/village_projector.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyMethods: VillageProjector |
| parabellum_infra/es/village_service/mod.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyMethods: VillageEsService |
| parabellum_types/tribe.rs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: parabellum_types/tribe.rs |
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. 47 of 48 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 48 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D13D15D16D21D28D29D31D33D34D35D36AC1AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX5AX9DM2DM4DM5DM6ES1ES2M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P5P6R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R8R9
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, 56 of 68 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic domain model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
5 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was VillageAggregate::apply at 64. A further 6 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being VillageEvent::fmt at 54 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
VillageAggregate::apply (cyclomatic 64)parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs:80
buildings::building_detail (cyclomatic 52)parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:519
battles::build_attack_outcome (cyclomatic 29)parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs:85
map::generate_new_map (cyclomatic 26)parabellum_game/models/map.rs:160
Battle::calculate_battle (cyclomatic 20)parabellum_game/battle.rs:149
What to do
- Resolve the 1 VillageAggregate finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with aggregate.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 buildings finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with buildings.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 battles finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with battles.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
10 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was buildings::building_detail at 70.
buildings::building_detail (cognitive 70) parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:519
Village::validate_building_construction (cognitive 21) parabellum_game/models/village.rs:1176
seed::run_seed (cognitive 20) parabellum_infra/seed/mod.rs:158
battles::build_attack_outcome (cognitive 52)parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs:85
Battle::calculate_battle (cognitive 27)parabellum_game/battle.rs:149
What to do
- Resolve the 2 buildings finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with buildings.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Village finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with village.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 seed finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with mod.rs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
20 god class(es) detected.
FileTooLong: api/buildings.rs parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:0
TooManyMethods: Village parabellum_game/models/village.rs:104
TooManyFunctions: crate::api::actionsparabellum_web/api/actions.rs:406
What to do
- Resolve the 13 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with buildings.rs (2), smithy.rs, actions.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
- Resolve the 6 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with village.rs, game.rs, village_projector.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with actions.rs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs (14×52=728); parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs (9×64=576); parabellum_app/villages/events.rs (8×54=432)
Hotspot: parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
70 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is parabellum_game/models/buildings.rs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
8 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 1 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:36
Medium: workflow-run-target-code-checkout.github/workflows/docker_hub.yml:16
What to do
- Resolve the 7 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with docker_hub.yml (4), ci.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with docker_hub.yml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 1 medium, 1 low.
Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_2Dockerfile:1
Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfile
Do you agree with this assessment?
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: army.rs↔common.rs 50%
Boundary-crossing change coupling: army.rs ↔ common.rsparabellum_game/models/army.rs
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
Workflow token permissions not restricted
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 Workflow token permissions not restricted 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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC1 · Text alternatives
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has no associated label. Add a <label htmlFor> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×3) — VillageRenameInline.tsx:60, MapPage.tsx:443, MapPage.tsx:451
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure
- A <table> with data cells but no <th> gives assistive technology no way to associate cells with their headers. Mark the header row/column cells as <th> (with a scope). — MapPage.tsx:502
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC4 · Keyboard semantics
- A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabIndex={0} + a key handler. — MapPage.tsx:295
What to do
- Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC5 · ARIA correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
- This element's Tailwind text/background colour utilities fall below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Pick a darker or lighter shade. (×4) — Layout.tsx:135, RallyPointBuilding.tsx:178, StatsPage.tsx:64, …
What to do
- Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start by running that check over your rendered pages in CI.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an accessibility check that can read your UI — no component framework was detected and your pages are rendered by server-side templates, which neither the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins nor the HTML-template linters can parse; run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, or assert the accessibility invariants over that rendered HTML in the test suite you already have, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `Army.id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — army.rs:19
- `Army.village_id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — army.rs:20
- `Army.current_map_field_id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — army.rs:21
- `Army.player_id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — army.rs:22
- `Village.id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — village.rs:105
- `Village.player_id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — village.rs:107
- `Village.parent_village_id` is a raw primitive id while the repo already defines newtype typed-ids — an inconsistently-adopted typed-id idiom. Give this identity its own newtype so it can't be confused with another entity's id or a plain value. — village.rs:127
What to do
- Adopt the repo's newtype typed-id idiom consistently — wrap every entity identity in its own newtype.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic domain model
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES1 · Fold determinism
Do you agree with this assessment?
ES2 · Immutable events
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README claims a DockerHub image but no such image exists
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README claims a DockerHub image but no such image exists.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: cargo-audit / cargo-deny (or clippy) — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- frontend/src/components/buildings/TrainingBuilding.tsx:8 · frontend/src/components/buildings/TrapperBuilding.tsx:50 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — TrainingBuilding.tsx:8
- frontend/src/components/ResourceFieldsMap.tsx:38 · frontend/src/components/VillageMap.tsx:40 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — ResourceFieldsMap.tsx:38
- frontend/src/pages/ReportsPage.tsx:348 · frontend/src/pages/ReportsPage.tsx:576 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — ReportsPage.tsx:348
- frontend/src/components/ResourceFieldsMap.tsx:69 · frontend/src/components/VillageMap.tsx:76 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — ResourceFieldsMap.tsx:69
- frontend/src/components/buildings/HeroMansionBuilding.tsx:120 · frontend/src/components/buildings/TrapperBuilding.tsx:84 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — HeroMansionBuilding.tsx:120
- frontend/src/components/buildings/MarketplaceBuilding.tsx:153 · frontend/src/components/buildings/RallyPointBuilding.tsx:317 · frontend/src/components/buildings/TrapperBuilding.tsx:86 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — MarketplaceBuilding.tsx:153
- frontend/src/components/buildings/RallyPointBuilding.tsx:317 · frontend/src/components/buildings/TrapperBuilding.tsx:86 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — RallyPointBuilding.tsx:317
- frontend/src/components/buildings/buildingCards.tsx:436 · frontend/src/components/buildings/buildingCards.tsx:518 · frontend/src/components/buildings/buildingCards.tsx:584 — all 3 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — buildingCards.tsx:436
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×8) — MapFieldPage.tsx:12, BuildingPage.tsx:27, ReportsPage.tsx:353, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
- 7 file(s) over 400 lines (counted as significant lines — blank lines excluded — over production source only, tests excluded), largest first: frontend/src/components/buildings/RallyPointBuilding.tsx (844), frontend/src/pages/ReportsPage.tsx (712), frontend/src/components/buildings/buildingCards.tsx (619), frontend/src/types/api.ts (508), frontend/src/pages/MapPage.tsx (495), frontend/src/components/buildings/MarketplaceBuilding.tsx (457) (+1 more).
What to do
- Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage
- 0% of 54 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- Unreachable from the 1 application, 1 tooling and 0 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
- no import path from any entry point (1 application, 1 tooling, 0 test roots considered) — VillageSidebar.tsx
- Nothing imports this binding — it is safe to review for removal. — hooks.ts:6
What to do
- Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. — client.ts:17
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 · Text alternatives | 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5 | Partial signal |
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC4 · Keyboard semantics | 2.1.1, 2.4.3 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 69% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 64% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 22% | Critical — gated by R4, R6, P3, P5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 65% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 78% | Adequate — gated by DM2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event Sourcing | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Accessibility | 47% | Weak — gated by AC4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 65 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~8310 lines of test source are present (.rs) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Cargo manifest and package.json), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.rs, .ts, .tsx) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Cargo manifest and package.json — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .rs, .ts, .tsx, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.rs) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored — an aggregate and a value object cannot be told apart from source alone here (every struct holding a struct reads alike), and a child COLLECTION (legitimate membership) is indistinguishable from a single embedded aggregate. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored — a domain type leaking across a crate boundary cannot be told apart from source alone from a legitimate shared-kernel crate. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM7 Repository granularity — not scored — detecting 'a repository per CHILD entity' needs the aggregate-root structure, which is not resolvable from source alone here. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED2 Event/command shape — not scored — deciding whether a command has more than one competing handler requires resolving the call graph, and a call made through an inferred or generic receiver has no resolvable owner in the source. Reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `cargo llvm-cov --lcov --output-path lcov.info`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 8 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:36
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:39
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci.yml:45
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker_hub.yml:17
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker_hub.yml:22
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker_hub.yml:28
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker_hub.yml:39
D35 · Change Coupling
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: army.rs ↔ common.rs parabellum_game/models/army.rs
Warning — 50 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: api/buildings.rs parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:0
- FileTooLong: models/smithy.rs parabellum_game/models/smithy.rs:0
- FileTooLong: models/buildings.rs parabellum_game/models/buildings.rs:0
- FileTooLong: api/actions.rs parabellum_web/api/actions.rs:0
- FileTooLong: parabellum_types/tribe.rs parabellum_types/tribe.rs:0
- FileTooLong: models/village.rs parabellum_game/models/village.rs:0
- FileTooLong: adapters/village_es_adapter.rs parabellum_infra/adapters/village_es_adapter.rs:0
- FileTooLong: api/game.rs parabellum_web/api/game.rs:0
- FileTooLong: villages/state.rs parabellum_app/villages/state.rs:0
- FileTooLong: villages/events.rs parabellum_app/villages/events.rs:0
- FileTooLong: seed/mod.rs parabellum_infra/seed/mod.rs:0
- FileTooLong: api/dto.rs parabellum_web/api/dto.rs:0
- FileTooLong: parabellum_game/battle.rs parabellum_game/battle.rs:0
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs
- Hotspot: parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs
- Hotspot: parabellum_app/villages/events.rs parabellum_app/villages/events.rs
- Hotspot: frontend/src/pages/BuildingPage.tsx frontend/src/pages/BuildingPage.tsx
- Hotspot: frontend/src/components/buildings/RallyPointBuilding.tsx frontend/src/components/buildings/RallyPointBuilding.tsx
- Hotspot: parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs
- Hotspot: parabellum_game/models/buildings.rs parabellum_game/models/buildings.rs
- Hotspot: frontend/src/pages/ReportsPage.tsx frontend/src/pages/ReportsPage.tsx
- Hotspot: frontend/src/pages/MapFieldPage.tsx frontend/src/pages/MapFieldPage.tsx
- Hotspot: parabellum_game/models/village.rs parabellum_game/models/village.rs
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: Village parabellum_game/models/village.rs:104
- TooManyMethods: GameApplication parabellum_app/application/game.rs:66
- TooManyMethods: VillageProjector parabellum_infra/es/consumers/village_projector.rs:29
- TooManyMethods: VillageEsService parabellum_infra/es/village_service/mod.rs:28
- TooManyMethods: VillageState parabellum_app/villages/state.rs:26
- TooManyMethods: VillageService parabellum_app/villages/cqrs_command_service.rs:14
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- buildings::building_detail (cognitive 70) parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:519
- buildings::smithy_options_for_village (cognitive 20) parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:2086
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Village::validate_building_construction (cognitive 21) parabellum_game/models/village.rs:1176
- Village::apply_battle_report (cognitive 19) parabellum_game/models/village.rs:971
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- seed::run_seed (cognitive 20) parabellum_infra/seed/mod.rs:158
- seed::resolve_village_from_template (cognitive 16) parabellum_infra/seed/mod.rs:358
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- VillageAggregate::apply (cyclomatic 64) parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs:80
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- buildings::building_detail (cyclomatic 52) parabellum_web/api/buildings.rs:519
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- battles::build_attack_outcome (cyclomatic 29) parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs:85
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- map::generate_new_map (cyclomatic 26) parabellum_game/models/map.rs:160
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Battle::calculate_battle (cyclomatic 20) parabellum_game/battle.rs:149
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- battles::build_attack_outcome (cognitive 52) parabellum_infra/es/workflows/battles.rs:85
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Battle::calculate_battle (cognitive 27) parabellum_game/battle.rs:149
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- VillageAggregate::apply (cognitive 22) parabellum_app/villages/aggregate.rs:80
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- queries::apply_scheduled_action_filter (cognitive 16) parabellum_infra/es/repositories/scheduled_actions/queries.rs:39
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Medium: workflow-run-target-code-checkout .github/workflows/docker_hub.yml:16
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyFunctions: crate::api::actions parabellum_web/api/actions.rs:406
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_2 Dockerfile:1
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Workflow token permissions not restricted
Recommendation — 8 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 8 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 2 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |