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.
arthis/Documently carries serious risk (46%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Code Health (86%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (32%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Security (43%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection).
For scale: Small (~2,862 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
86%
Strong
Architecture
79%
Strong
Maturity
55%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
32%
Weak · gated by P1, P2, P3
Security
43%
Weak · gated by C1
Event-Driven
100% ★
Exemplary
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 32% · 46% weightSecurity 43% · 25% weightMaturity 55% · 14% weightArchitecture 79% · 8% weightCode Health 86% · 4% weightEvent-Driven 100% · 2% weight
Raise Readiness 32 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 46 → ~56.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 3%Plumbing 74%Tests 21%Generated 2%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,300–€6,500
| Cost to rebuild | €1,300–€6,500 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 46% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 65% boilerplate · 32% straight-line · 3% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,900 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 32% — 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
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
3
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
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 32%. 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.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+3.7 pts/run over 10 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityEvent-Driven
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
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
9.1
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
9.3
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.9
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Event-Driven
Roadmap
First, establish a CI/CD pipeline to automatically build and test every change. Next, implement structured logging across all services to improve observability and debugging. Then, secure sensitive data by encrypting it at rest and managing keys in a vault. Finally, document key architectural decisions and update the README to explain how to run the test suite.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +12.5 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +12.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). | +7.6 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with All_commands_must_be_Serializable.cs, All_domain_events_must_be_Serializable.cs. | +3.7 pts | Low | Test Quality |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +3.4 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with AssemblyInfo.cs. | +2.5 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +4.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +3.9 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs | 5.9 | Mixed | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateNewCustomer.cs ↔ DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs |
| src/Documently.Domain/Domain/User.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode |
| src/Documently.Commands/RelocateTheCustomer.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: RelocateTheCustomer.cs ↔ DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs |
| src/Documently.Sagas.Specs/Indexing_saga_spec.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerDetails/CustomerDetailsOverview/CustomerDetailsOverviewViewModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerDetails/CustomerRelocating/CustomerRelocatingViewModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerList/CustomerListViewModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/DocumentDetails/CreateMeta/CreateDocumentMetaDataViewModel.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Documently.Specs/Commands/All_commands_must_be_Serializable.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: All_commands_will_have_the_Serializable_attribute_assigned |
| src/Documently.Specs/Events/All_domain_events_must_be_Serializable.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: All_domain_events_will_have_the_Serializable_attribute_assigned |
| src/Documently.Infrastructure/InProcessBus.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: InProcessBus.cs ↔ EventStoreInstaller.cs |
| src/Documently.Infrastructure/Installers/BusInstaller.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: BusInstaller.cs ↔ EventStoreInstaller.cs |
| src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewDocumentCollection.cs | 9.4 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithoutCallers |
| src/Documently.Messages/CustomerEvents/Relocated.cs | 9.4 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithoutCallers |
| src/Documently.Commands/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment 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. 42 of 45 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.
What we checked — 45 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D12D13D15D16D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6C1ED1ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3X1X3X4
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, 30 of 40 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 | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- 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.
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 (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- 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").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
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
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
13 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: Documently.Commands
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 8 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
18 test methods: 18 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 2 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 19 tests.
No assertions: All_commands_will_have_the_Serializable_attribute_assigned src/Documently.Specs/Commands/All_commands_must_be_Serializable.cs:11
Mock framework: Moq
What to do
- Resolve the 2 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with All_commands_must_be_Serializable.cs, All_domain_events_must_be_Serializable.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
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?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
10 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2804 LoC (0.4/KLoC) → score 9.1.
TodoComment src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerDetails/CustomerDetailsOverview/CustomerDetailsOverviewViewModel.cs:26
CommentedOutCode src/Documently.Domain/Domain/User.cs:8
BarePragmaDisablesrc/Documently.Sagas.Specs/Indexing_saga_spec.cs:3
ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs:18
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
13 projects, 119 .cs files, 3444 hand-written lines of code (2804 production / 640 test), plus 76 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 28 inter-project edges (build failed).
Thin analysable surface across projects
Build did not complete in the analyzer
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README (Documently) gives a good high-level overview: it describes what the project is, lists learnable concepts, and outlines upcoming features. It also shows how to start up RavenDB.Server and RabbitMQ for event-store/replay purposes plus two sample clients with a quick-start note that clips mid-sentence. However, there are no architecture or design documents (only one markdown file in the set), and XML documentation coverage across every project is zero — the README alone cannot be trusted as comprehensive guidance for developers.
XML-doc coverage: Documently.App src/Documently.App/Documently.App.csproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — The single README (Documently) gives a good high-level overview: it describes what the project is, lists learnable concepts, and outlines upcoming features. It also shows how to start up RavenDB.Server and RabbitMQ for event-store/replay purposes plus two sample clients with a quick-start note that clips mid-sentence. However, there are no architecture or design documents (only one markdown file in the set), and XML documentation coverage across every project is zero — the README alone cannot be trusted as comprehensive guidance for developers.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
12 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commentsrc/Documently.Commands/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs:35
What to do
- Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with AssemblyInfo.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 13 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
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?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).
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: CreateNewCustomer.cs↔RelocateTheCustomer.cs 60%; CreateNewCustomer.cs↔DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs 60%; RelocateTheCustomer.cs↔DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs 55%
Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateNewCustomer.cs ↔ DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs
Change coupling: CreateNewCustomer.cs ↔ RelocateTheCustomer.cs src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
- `Documently.Domain.Service` is a Domain project but references `Documently.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
- `Documently.App` is a Application project but references `Documently.Infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
What to do
- Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
- No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
- Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
- Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — InProcessBus.cs:30, InProcessBus.cs:77, CollapsedWhenNullConverter.cs:19
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Apply` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — DocumentMetaData.cs:59
- `Publish` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — InProcessBus.cs:28
- `GetEndpoint` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — InProcessBus.cs:75
- `Main` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — Program.cs:10
- `ConvertBack` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — CollapsedWhenNullConverter.cs:17
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×12) — DocumentIndexingHandler.cs:19, DocumentIndexingHandler.cs:27, Customer.cs:43, …
- `Configure`'s body only throws NotSupportedException — sometimes a deliberate contract, often an unfinished stub. Confirm it's intentional. — InProcessBus.cs:80
What to do
- Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
- 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 13 of 13 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
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?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 86% | Strong | Solid. |
| Architecture | 79% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 55% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 32% | Weak — gated by P1, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 43% | Weak — gated by C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event-Driven | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not included — 52 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- 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 ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 4 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
- ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
- ED3 Event naming — no domain or integration events detected — event-naming check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): an event-store package (Marten/EventStore); 3 aggregate(s) with Apply/When folds
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 2 finding(s)
D35 · Change Coupling
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: CreateNewCustomer.cs ↔ DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: RelocateTheCustomer.cs ↔ DocumentMetaDataHandler.cs src/Documently.Commands/RelocateTheCustomer.cs
Warning — 15 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerDetails/CustomerDetailsOverview/CustomerDetailsOverviewViewModel.cs:26
- TodoComment src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerDetails/CustomerRelocating/CustomerRelocatingViewModel.cs:23
- TodoComment src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/CustomerList/CustomerListViewModel.cs:39
- TodoComment src/Documently.WpfClient/Modules/DocumentDetails/CreateMeta/CreateDocumentMetaDataViewModel.cs:26
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: CreateNewCustomer.cs ↔ RelocateTheCustomer.cs src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs
- Change coupling: InProcessBus.cs ↔ EventStoreInstaller.cs src/Documently.Infrastructure/InProcessBus.cs
- Change coupling: BusInstaller.cs ↔ EventStoreInstaller.cs src/Documently.Infrastructure/Installers/BusInstaller.cs
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions: All_commands_will_have_the_Serializable_attribute_assigned src/Documently.Specs/Commands/All_commands_must_be_Serializable.cs:11
- No assertions: All_domain_events_will_have_the_Serializable_attribute_assigned src/Documently.Specs/Events/All_domain_events_must_be_Serializable.cs:12
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode src/Documently.Domain/Domain/User.cs:8
- CommentedOutCode src/Documently.Domain/Domain/User.cs:19
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: Documently.Commands
- Off the main sequence: Documently.Domain
D17 · Explicit Debt
- BarePragmaDisable src/Documently.Sagas.Specs/Indexing_saga_spec.cs:3
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — test suite did not build
Recommendation — 8 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs:18
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewDocumentCollection.cs:9
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Documently.Messages/CustomerEvents/Relocated.cs:14
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/Documently.Commands/Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs:35
Info — 15 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.App src/Documently.App/Documently.App.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Domain src/Documently.Domain/Documently.Domain.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Infrastructure src/Documently.Infrastructure/Documently.Infrastructure.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.ReadModel src/Documently.ReadModel/Documently.ReadModel.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.WpfClient src/Documently.WpfClient/Documently.WpfClient.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Commands src/Documently.Commands/Documently.Commands.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Domain.Service src/Documently.Domain.Service/Documently.Domain.Service.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.SampleEventListener src/Documently.SampleEventListener/Documently.SampleEventListener.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Sagas.Service src/Documently.Sagas.Service/Documently.Sagas.Service.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Sagas src/Documently.Sagas/Documently.Sagas.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Sagas.Specs src/Documently.Sagas.Specs/Documently.Sagas.Specs.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: Documently.Messages src/Documently.Messages/Documently.Messages.csproj
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: Moq
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
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 | dotnet | — | dotnet list src/Documently.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 0 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| 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 ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, 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, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Address — 6 field(s)
- CreateNewCustomer.PostalCode src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs:11
- RelocateTheCustomer.PostalCode src/Documently.Commands/RelocateTheCustomer.cs:11
- Address.PostalCode src/Documently.Domain/Domain/Address.cs:7
- Created.PostalCode src/Documently.Messages/CustomerEvents/Created.cs:23
- Relocated.PostalCode src/Documently.Messages/CustomerEvents/Relocated.cs:10
- CustomerAddressDto.PostalCode src/Documently.ReadModel/CustomerAddressDto.cs:7
Phone — 2 field(s)
- CreateNewCustomer.PhoneNumber src/Documently.Commands/CreateNewCustomer.cs:13
- Created.PhoneNumber src/Documently.Messages/CustomerEvents/Created.cs:25