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.
anton-liauchuk/educational-platform is sound in substance but carries real gaps (63%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Security (100%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Code Health (100%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (36%) — 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.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern… (Rich vs anemic model); README to the 19 of 19 project(s) that lack one (Documentation (README)).
For scale: Small (~3,503 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.
Code Health
100% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
99% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
86%
Strong
Readiness
36%
Weak · gated by P1, P3
Security
100% ★
Exemplary
Domain Modelling
79%
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 36% · 46% weightDomain Modelling 79% · 25% weightMaturity 86% · 14% weightArchitecture 99% · 8% weightCode Health 100% · 4% weightSecurity 100% · 2% weight
Raise Readiness 36 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 63 → ~79.
Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (9+)
- D20 · Decision is a boilerplate list with links citing design sources but no context/problem and consequences are couched in the decision's own wording ('it's forbidden to create a transaction which spans more than one bounded context') docs/architecture-decisions/0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md
- D20 · Context and decision are both present but the body is clipped mid-sentence ('We can add custom features to Spring functionality when it's needed.') before any consequences/trade-offs or a review link appear docs/architecture-decisions/0002-integration-events-implementation.md
- D20 · Context lists only the two alternatives (same model vs separate models) and a decision that is restated as 'it will be used' without explaining why CQRS was chosen over those options docs/architecture-decisions/0003-cqrs.md
- D20 · Context lists three solutions but never states the problem being solved (e.g. data inconsistency across requests) and the decision is restated verbatim without consequences docs/architecture-decisions/0004-validation.md
- D20 · Decision is narrow and consequences/trade-offs are absent: only that primary keys must not be used for cross-module/external identifier exchange; no mention of why uuids/good natural keys are preferred over each docs/architecture-decisions/0005-identifier-between-modules.md
- D20 · Context lists two alternatives but the decision is restated as a tautology ('rich domain model solution will be used') with no rationale or trade-offs docs/architecture-decisions/0006-rich-domain-model.md
- D20 · Uninformative title and the decision is restated verbatim as Context docs/architecture-decisions/0008-result-from-comand-handlers.md
- D20 · No consequences/trade-offs section describing the cost of adopting Axon (e.g. learning curve, configuration complexity) and benefits such as event sourcing docs/architecture-decisions/0011-use-axon-event-publishing-mechanism.md
- D20 · No consequences/trade-offs are stated (e.g., loss of Spring-specific features like data persistence or security) docs/architecture-decisions/0012-make-application-framework-independent.md
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,700–€14,000
| Cost to rebuild | €2,700–€14,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 63% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€8,100 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 36% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
2
Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
3
Add a README to the 19 of 19 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 36%. 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 CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
Roadmap
First, establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and test every change, ensuring immediate feedback on code quality. Next, refactor the codebase by moving business rules directly into the relevant entities to enforce invariants at the source. Then, create a comprehensive README for each project to clarify the system's structure and purpose. Finally, expand the architecture decision records to document significant design choices and correct the documentation to accurately reflect the current single-project state.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +23.6 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services. | +3.6 pts | Medium | Rich vs anemic model |
| Add a README to the 19 of 19 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts. | +1.9 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Grow the ADR log (currently 13) — reach 20 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made. | +1.9 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests. | +1.9 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Resolve the 1 ADR not followed finding(s) in ADR Conformance — start with 0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md. | +0.5 pts | Low | ADR Conformance |
| Resolve the 1 Context and decision are both present but the body is clipped… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0002-integration-events-implementation.md. | +0.4 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 1 Context lists only the two alternatives (same model vs separate models)… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0003-cqrs.md. | +0.4 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| docs/architecture-decisions/0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md | 6.5 | Mixed | ADR Conformance: ADR not followed: 1. Communications between bounded contexts. |
| administration/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/administration/course/approve/ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java | 7.0 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0002-integration-events-implementation.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Context and decision are both present but the body is clipped mid-sentence ('We can add custom features to Spring functionality when it's needed.') before any consequences/trade-offs or a review link appear |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0003-cqrs.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Context lists only the two alternatives (same model vs separate models) and a decision that is restated as 'it will be used' without explaining why CQRS was chosen over those options |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0004-validation.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Context lists three solutions but never states the problem being solved (e.g. data inconsistency across requests) and the decision is restated verbatim without consequences |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0005-identifier-between-modules.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Decision is narrow and consequences/trade-offs are absent: only that primary keys must not be used for cross-module/external identifier exchange; no mention of why uuids/good natural keys are preferred over each |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0006-rich-domain-model.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Context lists two alternatives but the decision is restated as a tautology ('rich domain model solution will be used') with no rationale or trade-offs |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0008-result-from-comand-handlers.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Uninformative title and the decision is restated verbatim as Context |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0010-use-axon-framework.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: Decision is stated but context and consequences fall below the clip marker; no trade-offs or alternatives are mentioned |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0011-use-axon-event-publishing-mechanism.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: No consequences/trade-offs section describing the cost of adopting Axon (e.g. learning curve, configuration complexity) and benefits such as event sourcing |
| docs/architecture-decisions/0012-make-application-framework-independent.md | 8.5 | Near-clean | ADR Quality: No consequences/trade-offs are stated (e.g., loss of Spring-specific features like data persistence or security) |
| users/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/users/login/SignInCommandHandler.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: SignInCommandHandler.java ↔ UserRegistrationCommandHandler.java |
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. 22 of 25 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — 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 — 25 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D7D13D15D20D21D25D28D29D34D35DM4DM5DM6DM8M1M2M3M4P1P3P6
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, 14 of 20 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 | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- 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.
- D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
- 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.
- 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.
- D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
- 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").
- 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.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
1 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)administration/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/administration/course/approve/ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java:43
Do you agree with this assessment?
D7 · Architectural Integrity
Of 5 mechanizable ADRs, 5 are prevented by analyzers, 0 by tests, 0 exist only in prose. Coverage: 100 %. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).
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
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 13 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 4.5/10 (frequently incomplete). 10 flagged with a specific gap.
Decision is a boilerplate list with links citing design sources but no context/problem and consequences are couched in the decision's own wording ('it's forbidden to create a transaction which spans more than one bounded context')docs/architecture-decisions/0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md
Context and decision are both present but the body is clipped mid-sentence ('We can add custom features to Spring functionality when it's needed.') before any consequences/trade-offs or a review link appeardocs/architecture-decisions/0002-integration-events-implementation.md
Context lists only the two alternatives (same model vs separate models) and a decision that is restated as 'it will be used' without explaining why CQRS was chosen over those optionsdocs/architecture-decisions/0003-cqrs.md
Context lists three solutions but never states the problem being solved (e.g. data inconsistency across requests) and the decision is restated verbatim without consequencesdocs/architecture-decisions/0004-validation.md
Decision is narrow and consequences/trade-offs are absent: only that primary keys must not be used for cross-module/external identifier exchange; no mention of why uuids/good natural keys are preferred over eachdocs/architecture-decisions/0005-identifier-between-modules.md
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Decision is a boilerplate list with links citing design sources but no… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Context and decision are both present but the body is clipped… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0002-integration-events-implementation.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Context lists only the two alternatives (same model vs separate models)… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0003-cqrs.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D25 · ADR Conformance
0 conform / 1 violate across 13 ADRs.
ADR not followed: 1. Communications between bounded contexts.docs/architecture-decisions/0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md
What to do
- Resolve the 1 ADR not followed finding(s) in ADR Conformance — start with 0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate ADR Conformance in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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: ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java↔DeclineCourseProposalCommandHandler.java 57%; SignInCommandHandler.java↔UserRegistrationCommandHandler.java 50%
Change coupling: ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java ↔ DeclineCourseProposalCommandHandler.java administration/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/administration/course/approve/ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
- `EnrollCourse` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — EnrollCourse.java:16
- `Student` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Student.java:15
- `ReviewableCourse` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — ReviewableCourse.java:16
- `Reviewer` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Reviewer.java:15
- `Lecture` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Lecture.java:10
- `Question` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Question.java:11
- `Quiz` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Quiz.java:16
- `Teacher` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Teacher.java:15
- `User` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — User.java:21
What to do
- Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 19 of 19 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
What to do
- Grow the ADR log (currently 13) — reach 20 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build.
What to do
- Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add 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?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 99% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 86% | Strong | Solid. |
| Readiness | 36% | Weak — gated by P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Domain Modelling | 79% | Strong | Solid. |
Not included — 76 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- 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 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
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) 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
- 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
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- 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 — ~2738 lines of test source are present (.java) 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 Gradle version catalogue), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- 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
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java) 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.
- 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 Gradle version catalogue — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- 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 — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
- 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 .java, 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.
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.java) 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 — no aggregates detected — aggregate-boundary check not applicable
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (5 event handler(s))
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (an Axon event-sourcing framework (@Aggregate/@CommandHandler/@EventSourcingHandler annotations))
- 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 — no CI workflow found
- 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.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- 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 (JaCoCo XML — the Gradle `jacocoTestReport` task) 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.
- 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.
- 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 — 1 finding(s)
D25 · ADR Conformance
- ADR not followed: 1. Communications between bounded contexts. docs/architecture-decisions/0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md
Warning — 15 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java ↔ DeclineCourseProposalCommandHandler.java administration/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/administration/course/approve/ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java
- Change coupling: SignInCommandHandler.java ↔ UserRegistrationCommandHandler.java users/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/users/login/SignInCommandHandler.java
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision is a boilerplate list with links citing design sources but no context/problem and consequences are couched in the decision's own wording ('it's forbidden to create a transaction which spans more than one bounded context') docs/architecture-decisions/0001-bounded-contexts-communication.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Context and decision are both present but the body is clipped mid-sentence ('We can add custom features to Spring functionality when it's needed.') before any consequences/trade-offs or a review link appear docs/architecture-decisions/0002-integration-events-implementation.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Context lists only the two alternatives (same model vs separate models) and a decision that is restated as 'it will be used' without explaining why CQRS was chosen over those options docs/architecture-decisions/0003-cqrs.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Context lists three solutions but never states the problem being solved (e.g. data inconsistency across requests) and the decision is restated verbatim without consequences docs/architecture-decisions/0004-validation.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision is narrow and consequences/trade-offs are absent: only that primary keys must not be used for cross-module/external identifier exchange; no mention of why uuids/good natural keys are preferred over each docs/architecture-decisions/0005-identifier-between-modules.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Context lists two alternatives but the decision is restated as a tautology ('rich domain model solution will be used') with no rationale or trade-offs docs/architecture-decisions/0006-rich-domain-model.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Uninformative title and the decision is restated verbatim as Context docs/architecture-decisions/0008-result-from-comand-handlers.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- Decision is stated but context and consequences fall below the clip marker; no trade-offs or alternatives are mentioned docs/architecture-decisions/0010-use-axon-framework.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No consequences/trade-offs section describing the cost of adopting Axon (e.g. learning curve, configuration complexity) and benefits such as event sourcing docs/architecture-decisions/0011-use-axon-event-publishing-mechanism.md
D20 · ADR Quality
- No consequences/trade-offs are stated (e.g., loss of Spring-specific features like data persistence or security) docs/architecture-decisions/0012-make-application-framework-independent.md
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) administration/application/src/main/java/com/educational/platform/administration/course/approve/ApproveCourseProposalCommandHandler.java:43
Recommendation — 2 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
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 . | 0 | 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: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.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: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain. | 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 | — |