Public report — CleanArchitecture, published 19 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 19-06-2026 @ 21:43 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Ardalis/CleanArchitecture

single-maintainerbounded contexts not declared
77% Healthy
Domain Modelling 100% Exemplary Security 91% Exemplary Readiness 82% Exemplary Code Health 81% Healthy Architecture 80% Healthy Maturity 74% Exemplary Performance 74% Healthy

Hobby · 1,715 LoC · 9 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Performance (74%)

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

55/58dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
26findings with an exact file:lineof 52 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
58/98dimensions across the health lenses1715 LoC · 9 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

ardalis/CleanArchitecture is in good health (77%). It can be evolved and operated with normal engineering discipline; the items below are improvements, not blockers.

It is strongest in Domain Modelling (100%) — the domain model is expressive and well-guarded. Security (91%) is solid too.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with… (Benchmark discipline); Grow the ADR log (currently 3) (Architecture documentation); The domain core is a small share of production code (Code composition).

For scale: Hobby (~1,715 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 81% Healthy Architecture 80% Healthy Maturity 74% ★ Exemplary Readiness 82% ★ Exemplary Security 91% ★ Exemplary Domain Modelling 100% ★ Exemplary Performance 74% Healthy
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 4%Plumbing 36%Tests 49%Generated 11%
New since the last scan (5+)

5 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-18) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Core src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure src/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.UseCases src/Clean.Architecture.UseCases/Clean.Architecture.UseCases.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Web src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Clean.Architecture.Web.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults src/Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults/Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults.csproj

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,900–€15,000
Cost to rebuild€2,900–€15,000 (0.1 person-years (49–155 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityHigh — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor1.2× (at 77% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeHobby · 44% boilerplate · 45% straight-line · 11% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€8,800 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Performance at 74% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.7) — microservices, CQRS, domain model × a 1.2× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
+1.9 pts · Medium effort · Benchmark discipline
2
Grow the ADR log (currently 3) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
+1.7 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
+1.1 pts · Medium effort · Code composition

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+10.1 pts/run over 3 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +10.1 pts/run over 3 runs

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch Architecture.AspireHost Architecture.AspireHost ctx:Architecture.ServiceDefaults Architecture.ServiceDefaults ServiceDefaults Architecture.AspireHost->ctx:Architecture.ServiceDefaults Architecture.Web Architecture.Web ctx:Architecture.Infrastructure Architecture.Infrastructure Infrastructure Architecture.Web->ctx:Architecture.Infrastructure Architecture.Web->ctx:Architecture.ServiceDefaults ctx:Architecture.UseCases Architecture.UseCases UseCases Architecture.Web->ctx:Architecture.UseCases ctx:Architecture.Core Architecture.Core Core ctx:Architecture.Infrastructure->ctx:Architecture.Core ctx:Architecture.Infrastructure->ctx:Architecture.UseCases ctx:Architecture.UseCases->ctx:Architecture.Core __more__ +2 more contexts

At a glance — Code Health · 81% · Healthy

The Good
D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 10.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 10.0 D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 10.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 10.0 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 10.0 D18 · .NET / C# Solution Shape 10.0 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 6.8 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.5
The Bad
X1 · Repo Async correctness 6.0

At a glance — Architecture · 80% · Healthy

The Good
D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX7 · Repo Slice cohesion 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0
The Bad
D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 6.2
The Ugly
AX10 · Repo Code composition 4.0

At a glance — Maturity · 74% · Exemplary

The Good
D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 7.0 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 7.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.6 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 4.0

At a glance — Readiness · 82% · Exemplary

The Good
D8 · .NET / C# Code Coverage 7.7 D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 9.6 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D12 · .NET / C# Dependency Hygiene 10.0 D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 8.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.5 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

At a glance — Security · 91% · Exemplary

The Good
D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 10.0 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 10.0 C3 · Repo Audit Trail 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 8.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 100% · Exemplary

The Good
DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 10.0 DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0

At a glance — Performance · 74% · Healthy

The Good
PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 8.5 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 8.5

Roadmap

First, establish benchmarking discipline by adding a BenchmarkDotNet project for hot paths and integrating it into CI to catch performance regressions. Next, expand the architecture decision record to eight entries and document significant decisions as they occur. Then, ensure the domain core remains distinct by verifying that business logic is not leaking into application or infrastructure layers. Finally, harden the web security posture by adding response headers like Content-Security-Policy and X-Frame-Options, and improve allocation hygiene on hot paths by adopting memory-efficient patterns such as Span and pooling.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.+1.9 ptsMediumBenchmark discipline
Grow the ADR log (currently 3) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.+1.7 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).+1.1 ptsMediumCode composition
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.+1.0 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 10 use(s) across 2,026 production line(s) (~4.9/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.+0.7 ptsMediumAllocation hygiene
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.+0.7 ptsMediumAsync & latency hygiene
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+0.7 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)+0.6 ptsMediumAsync correctness

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 16 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 0% mixed · 100% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
tests/Clean.Architecture.FunctionalTests/ApiEndpoints/ContributorGetById.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenId1000
src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Core
src/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure
src/Clean.Architecture.UseCases/Clean.Architecture.UseCases.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.UseCases
src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Clean.Architecture.Web.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Web
src/Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults/Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults
sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs9.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestWhenTitleIsMissing
sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorUpdate.cs9.3Near-cleanTest Quality: No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenMissingContributorId
sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorDelete.cs9.3Near-cleanTest Quality: No direct assertions: DeletesExistingContributor
sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectGetById.cs9.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenInvalidId1000
sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorGetById.cs9.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenInvalidId1000
src/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure/README.md9.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage (9%) for the infrastructure layer.
src/Clean.Architecture.Web/README.md9.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage (10%) for the Web project.
src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Contributors/List.cs9.5Near-cleanComment Value: redundant comment
src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Program.cs9.5Near-cleanComment Value: redundant comment
tests/Clean.Architecture.IntegrationTests/Data/EfRepositoryDelete.cs9.5Near-cleanComment Value: redundant comment

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. 55 of 58 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 0.6 — 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.

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

What we checked — 58 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D28D29D30AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX7AX9C3DM1DM2DM4DM5DM8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P4P7P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 26 of 52 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee1d6-c27e-7f83-982b-74c2a9424d51.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

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

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • 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.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
  • 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.
  • 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".

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 duplicated block group(s) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md.

D5 · Coupling6.2 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 1 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults · ×3
Unstable project Clean.Architecture.AspireHost

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Unstable project Clean.Architecture.AspireHost finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 7 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

D8 · Code Coverage7.7 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 39.9%, branch coverage 30.3%.

What to do

  1. Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

18 test methods: 10 unit, 8 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 14 zero-assertion, 2 mock references across 83 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).

No assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenId1000tests/Clean.Architecture.FunctionalTests/ApiEndpoints/ContributorGetById.cs:21
No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenInvalidId1000 · ×13sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectGetById.cs:28
Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×2

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 · License Compliance8.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 of 66 packages use a banned license.

Banned license: NsDepCop
Licenses scanned

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Enforce License Compliance in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

git history depth insufficient

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D17 · Explicit Debt10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 1429 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

1 projects, 14 .cs files, 168 hand-written lines of code (161 production / 7 test), 0 inter-project edges.

Clean.Architecture.Core (Production)src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Healthy◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The documentation is comprehensive and well-structured, covering architectural philosophy, project-specific guidance, and decision records. The inclusion of a migration guide and ADRs adds significant value. However, the project suffers from severe XML documentation coverage (averaging ~8%), which is a critical gap for API consumers and maintainers. Additionally, the root README is truncated, and the documentation contains repetitive boilerplate text across multiple README files.

Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Core · ×5src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj
Low XML-doc coverage (9%) for the infrastructure layer.src/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure/README.md
Low XML-doc coverage (10%) for the Web project.src/Clean.Architecture.Web/README.md
XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.AspireHostsrc/Clean.Architecture.AspireHost/Clean.Architecture.AspireHost.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj, Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure.csproj, Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage (9%) for the infrastructure layer. finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage (10%) for the Web project. finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Healthy◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

28 valuable / 35 redundant across 147 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×3src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Contributors/List.cs:89

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with EfRepositoryDelete.cs, List.cs, Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 of 9 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C3 · Audit Trail10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

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

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×9) — DeleteContributorHandler.cs:15, DeleteContributorHandler.cs:16, DeleteContributorHandler.cs:17, …
  • A placeholder value ("John Doe") is still in shipped code — sample/mock data that was never replaced with the real thing. (×4) — Create.cs:31, Create.cs:32, GetById.cs:27, …

What to do

  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)7.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 5 of 9 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.1 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation4.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Grow the ADR log (currently 3) — reach 8 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.
M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P2 · Observability8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 3/6 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a BenchmarkDotNet suite, an allocation MemoryDiagnoser, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • No BenchmarkDotNet suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

  • Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 10 use(s) across 2,026 production line(s) (~4.9/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene8.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

  • 1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.

What to do

  • Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
S1 · Web-Security Posture8.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
X1 · Async correctness6.0 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. — AppDbContext.cs:15

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation6.8 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 7/15 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×8) — DeleteContributorService.cs:18, ListContributorsQueryService.cs:17, SeedData.cs:11, …

What to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types9.5 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • ~0.7 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health81%HealthySolid.
Architecture80%HealthySolid.
Maturity74%ExemplarySolid.
Readiness82%ExemplarySolid.
Security91%ExemplarySolid.
Domain Modelling100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Performance74%HealthyLargest drag on the score — prioritise here.
Not included — 40 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice + CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
  • C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
  • C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
  • D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — no domain-layer types detected — domain↔infrastructure boundary check not applicable
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 2 event handler(s); 7 CQRS handler(s)
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 2 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×1
  • No assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenId1000 tests/Clean.Architecture.FunctionalTests/ApiEndpoints/ContributorGetById.cs:21 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
D14 · License Compliance · Banned license · ×1
  • Banned license: NsDepCop — NsDepCop 2.7.0 is licensed GPL-2.0-only (banned by policy).
Warning — 11 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×5
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Core src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj — Clean.Architecture.Core: 6 % XML-doc coverage (2/34).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure src/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure.csproj — Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure: 9 % XML-doc coverage (3/35).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.UseCases src/Clean.Architecture.UseCases/Clean.Architecture.UseCases.csproj — Clean.Architecture.UseCases: 14 % XML-doc coverage (3/22).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.Web src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Clean.Architecture.Web.csproj — Clean.Architecture.Web: 10 % XML-doc coverage (8/78).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults src/Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults/Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults.csproj — Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3
  • Off the main sequence: Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults — Clean.Architecture.ServiceDefaults: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Clean.Architecture.Core — Clean.Architecture.Core: abstractness 0.15, instability 0.00, distance 0.85 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Clean.Architecture.UseCases — Clean.Architecture.UseCases: abstractness 0.07, instability 0.20, distance 0.73 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · git history depth insufficient · ×1
  • git history depth insufficient — git history depth insufficient — install a full clone for reliable trend signal.
D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1
  • single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (0 author(s) across 0 commit(s) sampled).
D5 · Coupling · Unstable project Clean.Architecture.AspireHost · ×1
  • Unstable project Clean.Architecture.AspireHost — Clean.Architecture.AspireHost has instability 1.00 with 0 dependents.
Recommendation — 29 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No direct assertions · ×13
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenInvalidId1000 sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectGetById.cs:28 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestWhenTitleIsMissing sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:48 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestWhenDescriptionIsMissing sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:64 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestWhenProjectIdIsZero sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:80 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundWhenProjectDoesNotExist sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:96 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestWhenTitleExceedsMaxLength sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:234 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestWhenDescriptionExceedsMaxLength sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:251 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: HandlesWhitespaceOnlyTitleAndDescription sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Projects/ProjectAddToDoItem.cs:268 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenMissingContributorId sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorUpdate.cs:32 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsBadRequestIfRouteIdDoesNotMatchBodyId sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorUpdate.cs:43 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenInvalidId1000 sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorGetById.cs:25 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: DeletesExistingContributor sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorDelete.cs:16 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
  • No direct assertions: ReturnsNotFoundGivenMissingContributorId sample/tests/NimblePros.SampleToDo.FunctionalTests/Contributors/ContributorDelete.cs:26 — In a harness-style test project (most tests assert via a verifier/approval harness or step indirection) — no conventional assertion call was detected.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×3
  • redundant comment src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Contributors/List.cs:89 — "// Bind to ?page=" — Remove. The attribute `[FromQuery]` or similar in the code makes this comment unnecessary.
  • redundant comment src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Program.cs:5 — "// This sets up OpenTelemetry logging" — Remove. The code `builder.AddOpenTelemetry()` is self-explanatory.
  • redundant comment tests/Clean.Architecture.IntegrationTests/Data/EfRepositoryDelete.cs:11 — "// add a Contributor" — Remove. The variable name or method call likely makes this obvious.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage (9%) for the infrastructure layer. · ×1
  • Low XML-doc coverage (9%) for the infrastructure layer. src/Clean.Architecture.Infrastructure/README.md — Add XML <summary> tags to public classes and methods in the Infrastructure project.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage (10%) for the Web project. · ×1
  • Low XML-doc coverage (10%) for the Web project. src/Clean.Architecture.Web/README.md — Add XML <summary> tags to public classes and methods in the Web project.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — A codebase of this size and project count likely contains multiple distinct concerns that require explicit boundary declarations to prevent unassessed type coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D27 · Navigability · Navigability unmeasured · ×1
  • Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete — 75 % of sampled invocations could not be resolved to a symbol (the workspace likely loaded without all references) — the indirection fractions would be computed over an unrepresentative slice, so navigability is reported as not measured rather than a misleading score.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · early-stage repository · ×1
  • early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (0 commit(s) sampled).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — This is a dotnet-new template — it produces no released artifact to attest. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM are deferred to the application you build from it (add SLSA provenance / cosign signing / an SBOM in your app's release pipeline).
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 10 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×2
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Clean.Architecture.IntegrationTests references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — Clean.Architecture.UnitTests references NSubstitute.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 66 packages scanned; 4 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · Clean.Architecture.Core (Production) · ×1
  • Clean.Architecture.Core (Production) src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.csproj — 14 .cs files, 214 LoC (154 significant)
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×1
  • XML-doc coverage: Clean.Architecture.AspireHost src/Clean.Architecture.AspireHost/Clean.Architecture.AspireHost.csproj — Clean.Architecture.AspireHost: 100 % XML-doc coverage (0/0).
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 10 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 8 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaks—gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet list src/Clean.Architecture.Core/Clean.Architecture.Core.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — This is a dotnet-new template — it produces no released artifact to attest. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM are deferred to the application you build from it (add SLSA provenance / cosign signing / an SBOM in your app's release pipeline).0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0—

Run 019ee1d6-c27e-7f83-982b-74c2a9424d51 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 5 field(s) across 1 category, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Phone — 5 field(s)
  • Contributor.PhoneNumber src/Clean.Architecture.Core/ContributorAggregate/Contributor.cs:9
  • ContributorDto.PhoneNumber src/Clean.Architecture.UseCases/Contributors/ContributorDTO.cs:4
  • CreateContributorCommand.PhoneNumber src/Clean.Architecture.UseCases/Contributors/Create/CreateContributorCommand.cs:9
  • ContributorRecord.PhoneNumber src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Contributors/ContributorRecord.cs:3
  • CreateContributorRequest.PhoneNumber src/Clean.Architecture.Web/Contributors/Create.cs:68

Issues: 2 · Warnings: 11 · Recommendations: 29 · Info: 10 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 19-06-2026 @ 21:43 UTC.

Downloadable artifacts

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

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif