Public report — modular-rails, published 30 Jul 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 30-07-2026 @ 01:09 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Bibendi/modular-Rails

single-maintainer
53% At Risk
Architecture 100% Exemplary Code Health 100% Exemplary Security 71% Adequate Readiness 49% Weak Domain Modelling 48% Weak Maturity 47% Weak

Small · 4,568 LoC · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (47%)

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

16/18dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
31findings with an exact file:lineof 38 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
18/94dimensions across the health lenses4568 LoC — wide & deep

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.

bibendi/modular-rails is sound in substance but carries real gaps (53%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Code Health (100%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (100%) is solid too.

Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (47%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Domain Modelling (48%) is the next concern — the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Expand the README with getting-started (Documentation (README)); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper (Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary).

For scale: Small (~4,568 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code Health 100% ★ Exemplary Architecture 100% ★ Exemplary Maturity 47% Weak · gated by M2 Readiness 49% Weak · gated by P5 Security 71% Adequate · gated by D38 Domain Modelling 48% Weak
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.
Maturity 47% · 46% weightDomain Modelling 48% · 25% weightReadiness 49% · 14% weightSecurity 71% · 8% weightCode Health 100% · 4% weightArchitecture 100% · 2% weight

No single dominant problem — the weakest areas are close, so progress on any of them moves the score.

Code composition — where the lines go
Tests 100%
New since the last scan (28+)

28 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D38 · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Critical vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock
  • D38 · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock

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 — €2,100–€10,000
Cost to rebuild€2,100–€10,000 (0.1 person-years (35–110 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 53% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,300 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 47% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.0) — standard service × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source · effort from total production LoC as straight-line logic (the tier split is a C#-only syntax walk), a conservative lower bound. 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
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
+5.9 pts · Medium effort · Documentation (README)
2
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
+5.9 pts · Medium effort · Architecture documentation
3
Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).
+5.7 pts · Medium effort · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 47%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (4,568 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 47%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.

At a glance — Code Health · 100% · Exemplary

The Good
D4 · Ruby Code Duplication 10.0

At a glance — Architecture · 100% · Exemplary

The Good
D35 · Ruby Change Coupling 10.0

At a glance — Maturity · 47% · Weak · gated by M2

The Good
D19 · Ruby Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Ruby Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0
The Bad
M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 6.5
The Ugly
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 4.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0

At a glance — Readiness · 49% · Weak · gated by P5

The Good
D13 · Ruby Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 4.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 0.0

At a glance — Security · 71% · Adequate · gated by D38

The Good
D28 · Ruby Secrets (history) 10.0 D29 · Ruby Static Analysis (SAST) 8.4 D31 · Ruby IaC & Container Security 10.0
The Ugly
D38 · Ruby OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities 0.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 48% · Weak

The Ugly
DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 4.8

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components29High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection1High / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration1Medium

Roadmap

First, expand the README with a comprehensive getting-started guide, architecture overview, and project map. Next, establish an ADR log to record significant architectural decisions and their rationale. Then, enforce a strict boundary between the domain and infrastructure by mapping data through repositories, ensuring domain entities remain framework-free. Additionally, codify disaster recovery and backup procedures in IaC, documenting RTO/RPO and restore steps. Finally, correct the README to accurately reflect the current state, removing the claim about HotWire.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.+5.9 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.+5.9 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).+5.7 ptsMediumDomain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.+5.3 ptsMediumDR & Backup
Reconcile the README with reality: README claims Admin Dashboard using HotWire but there is no HotWire component.+4.5 ptsMediumDocumentation accuracy
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.+2.8 ptsMediumDeployment & Rollback
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10.+1.7 ptsMediumDocumentation Quality
Resolve the 16 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Gemfile.lock (16).+1.1 ptsMediumOSV Dependency Vulnerabilities

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 3 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 33% slop · 34% mixed · 33% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Gemfile.lock0.0SlopOSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted]
engines/core_by/spec/graphql/mutations/create_direct_upload_spec.rb7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: weak-hashes-md5
Dockerfile9.3Near-cleanIaC & Container Security: Low IaC: DS-0026

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. 16 of 18 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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 — 18 dimensions across the health lenses
D4D13D19D21D28D29D31D35D38DM6M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P5

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, 31 of 38 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 coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ 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 measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fb091-5d6c-7609-abac-d69f3e06d4a4.

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.

  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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.

  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • 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.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • 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.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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.

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.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ 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 Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project has strong documentation: an active README with a TODO list and a developer docs directory containing a complete sidebar outline for each topic. The gems READMEs are exemplary — one covers RSpec configuration loading, the tools included in Rails config, fixture_file_path usage, and a detailed rubocop custom-cop example; another explains why factories live as a gem rather than common-testing; yet others cover engines (core_by/auth_by) and mailers with links to official guides. The README is thin but it reflects the project's direction.

What to do

  1. Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — The project has strong documentation: an active README with a TODO list and a developer docs directory containing a complete sidebar outline for each topic. The gems READMEs are exemplary — one covers RSpec configuration loading, the tools included in Rails config, fixture_file_path usage, and a detailed rubocop custom-cop example; another explains why factories live as a gem rather than common-testing; yet others cover engines (core_by/auth_by) and mailers with links to official guides. The README is thin but it reflects the project's direction.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.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 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_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)8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. 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 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

High: weak-hashes-md5engines/core_by/spec/graphql/mutations/create_direct_upload_spec.rb:28detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with create_direct_upload_spec.rb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

Low IaC: DS-0026Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.

Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.

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

29 finding(s): 6 critical, 16 high, 6 medium, 1 low.

High CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×16Gemfile.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×5Gemfile.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Critical vulnerability: [GHSA redacted]Gemfile.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×6Gemfile.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding
Low CVE: [GHSA redacted]Gemfile.lockdetected by osv-scanner finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 16 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Gemfile.lock (16). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 5 Critical CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Gemfile.lock (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Critical vulnerability finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with Gemfile.lock. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies — a domain aggregate fused to a persistence ORM (ActiveRecord/Sequel/ROM) on its own declaration (active-record) couples the domain to infrastructure. The clean-architecture dependency rule.

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

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

  • `User` is a domain concept fused to persistence ON ITS OWN DECLARATION (Rails ActiveRecord — `ApplicationRecord`) — the domain entity IS the ActiveRecord row (active-record), and it carries domain behaviour on the persistence type. A schema/persistence change ripples straight into the domain. Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + a mapper, and the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository). — user.rb:4

What to do

  • Keep the ORM/table mapping on a boundary data-model + mapper; leave the domain entity framework-free (map row↔domain through a repository).
M1 · Documentation (README)4.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • The root README is 49 words — likely missing build/run/architecture context.

What to do

  • Expand the README with getting-started, architecture overview and a project map.
  • 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 an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
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 accuracy6.5 / 10Adequate◐ 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.

  • README claims Admin Dashboard using HotWire but there is no HotWire component

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README claims Admin Dashboard using HotWire but there is no HotWire component.
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.

P3 · Security & performance tooling4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

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

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 Health100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Architecture100%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity47%Weak — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness49%Weak — gated by P5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security71%Adequate — gated by D38Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling48%WeakBelow par — needs attention.
Not included — 76 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.
  • AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
  • AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over the .NET document set and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
  • AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over the .NET project-reference graph and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over the .NET project-reference graph and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from the .NET project graph (projects, types, namespaces) and no such graph was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over the .NET type surface and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX8 Test isolation — not assessed — test isolation is computed from the .NET project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) and no such graph was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
  • C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.rb) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D10 Test Quality — ~1918 lines of test source are present (.rb) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
  • D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .rb — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
  • D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.rb) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.rb) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
  • D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.rb) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR 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 build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .rb, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
  • D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.rb) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — SimpleCov with `simplecov-lcov`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository

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 — 23 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×16
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — actionpack 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.1.4.6. This is 1 of 10 advisories this scan raises against actionpack 6.1.4.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.1.7.9 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.1.7.9 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of actionpack 6.1.4.1 clears all 10 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — active_attr 0.15.3: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 0.15.4 (in 2 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock)
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — addressable 2.8.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.9.0
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — concurrent-ruby 1.1.9: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.3.7 (in 4 dependency files) One upgrade of concurrent-ruby 1.1.9 clears all 3 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — faraday 1.8.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.10.6. This is 1 of 2 advisories this scan raises against faraday 1.8.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.10.6 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.10.6 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. One upgrade of faraday 1.8.0 clears all 2 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — google-protobuf 3.19.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 3.25.5. This is 1 of 3 advisories this scan raises against google-protobuf 3.19.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.25.5 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.25.5 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. One upgrade of google-protobuf 3.19.1 clears all 3 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — grpc 1.41.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.53.2
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — jwt 2.3.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.10.3
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — loofah 2.12.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.19.1. This is 1 of 4 advisories this scan raises against loofah 2.12.0, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.25.2 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.25.2 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of loofah 2.12.0 clears all 4 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — oauth 0.5.8: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.1.6
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — oauth2 1.4.7: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.0.22
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — rails-html-sanitizer 1.4.2: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.4.4. This is 1 of 6 advisories this scan raises against rails-html-sanitizer 1.4.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.7.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.7.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of rails-html-sanitizer 1.4.2 clears all 6 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — rexml 3.2.5: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 3.3.6. This is 1 of 6 advisories this scan raises against rexml 3.2.5, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.3.9 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.3.9 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 2 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-rubocop/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of rexml 3.2.5 clears all 6 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — sidekiq 6.3.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.4.0. This is 1 of 2 advisories this scan raises against sidekiq 6.3.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.5.10 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.5.10 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. One upgrade of sidekiq 6.3.1 clears all 2 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — webrick 1.7.0: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.8.2 One upgrade of webrick 1.7.0 clears all 2 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • High CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — websocket-driver 0.7.5: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 0.8.2. This is 1 of 4 advisories this scan raises against websocket-driver 0.7.5, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 0.8.2 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 0.8.2 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of websocket-driver 0.7.5 clears all 4 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×5
  • Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — activerecord 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.1.6.1. This is 1 of 4 advisories this scan raises against activerecord 6.1.4.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.1.7.1 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.1.7.1 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of activerecord 6.1.4.1 clears all 4 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — activestorage 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 7.1.5.2. This is 1 of 8 advisories this scan raises against activestorage 6.1.4.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.1.7.7 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.1.7.7 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of activestorage 6.1.4.1 clears all 8 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — graphql 1.12.19: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.12.25
  • Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — puma 5.5.2: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 5.6.7. This is 1 of 7 advisories this scan raises against puma 5.5.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 5.6.9 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 5.6.9 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. One upgrade of puma 5.5.2 clears all 7 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • Critical CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — rack 2.2.3: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 2.2.3.1. This is 1 of 32 advisories this scan raises against rack 2.2.3, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 2.2.23 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 2.2.23 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 4 dependency files) One upgrade of rack 2.2.3 clears all 32 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×1
  • High: weak-hashes-md5 engines/core_by/spec/graphql/mutations/create_direct_upload_spec.rb:28 — Should not use md5 to generate hashes. md5 is proven to be vulnerable through the use of brute-force attacks. Could also result in collisions, leading to potential collision attacks. Use SHA256 or other hashing functions instead.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical vulnerability · ×1
  • Critical vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — nokogiri 1.12.5: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.18.9. This is 1 of 28 advisories this scan raises against nokogiri 1.12.5, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 1.19.4 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 1.19.4 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of nokogiri 1.12.5 clears all 28 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
Warning — 7 finding(s)
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×6
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — actionmailer 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.1.7.9 (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock)
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — actiontext 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.1.7.9 (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock)
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — actionview 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 6.1.5.1. This is 1 of 3 advisories this scan raises against actionview 6.1.4.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.1.7.3 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.1.7.3 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock) One upgrade of actionview 6.1.4.1 clears all 3 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — activesupport 6.1.4.1: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 7.2.3.1. This is 1 of 6 advisories this scan raises against activesupport 6.1.4.1, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 6.1.7.5 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 6.1.7.5 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. (in 4 dependency files) One upgrade of activesupport 6.1.4.1 clears all 6 advisories it raises: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — bcrypt 3.1.16: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 3.1.22
  • Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — fugit 1.5.2: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.11.1
D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1
  • single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 38 commit(s) sampled).
Recommendation — 6 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — Test source is present (.rb) but the built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem, so flakiness couldn't be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · complexity unreadable for .rb · ×1
  • complexity unreadable for .rb — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured — A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (0 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .rb, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
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 (38 commit(s) sampled).
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×1
  • Low CVE: [GHSA redacted] Gemfile.lock — globalid 0.5.2: [GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 1.0.1 (in 3 dependency files: Gemfile.lock, gems/common-factory/Gemfile.lock, gems/common-testing/Gemfile.lock)
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not included · ×1
  • Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector — Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.rb) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — SimpleCov with `simplecov-lcov`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency hygiene not measured · ×1
  • Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene — This repository's dependency manifest (a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)) was found, but this pass cannot parse it for hygiene, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D38 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

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 /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .1artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnone (no readable dependency manifest)—none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .1artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
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 Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).0—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosure—disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner --format json --recursive .29artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D40 · Network Egress Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.0—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcementruntime-hardening—runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.0—

Run 019fb091-5d6c-7609-abac-d69f3e06d4a4 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 23 · Warnings: 7 · Recommendations: 6 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 30-07-2026 @ 01:09 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⬇ Health changelog .md