bravodev-hub/appointme

Executive summary

bravodev-hub/appointme scores 49 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while seven of its nine lenses score higher still: Event-Driven at 100, rated Exemplary, Code Health at 82, Performance at 72 and Accessibility at 63, all rated Strong, and Architecture at 74, Domain Modelling at 73 and Security and Compliance at 72, all rated Adequate. Watchdog judged it as a template, sample or demo, meant to be read or copied, so the dimensions about building, releasing and running a product don't apply, and its lenses are rated against a lower bar. The score itself is worked out as for any repository.

The score is lower than those seven because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 39 and is rated Adequate. Its Secret Scanning dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning and to reconcile the README with reality: README.md changes into `Contoso.Booking/src/Contoso.Booking.Aspire`, but no such folder exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names `api/v1`, but no file or folder `api/v1` exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names TypeScript 5, but the manifest declares `typescript` ^6.0.3; infra/README.md documents the environment variable `PRINCIPAL_ID`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md names `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep`, but no file or folder `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep` exists, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 49 to about 56.

58 findings are critical: 25 in Static Analysis (SAST), 12 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, eight in Secret Scanning, four in Circular Imports, four in Project dependency cycles, three in Secrets (history), one in Explicit Debt and one in IaC & Container Security.

Watchdog couldn't measure Dependency Hygiene, Navigability and Runtime accessibility in this code, so those dimensions are left out of the score. The product code is 19,716 lines, which would take an estimated 0.3 person-years, around €39,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 82 Strong Architecture 74 Adequate, capped by Circular Imports Maturity 43 Adequate, capped by Architecture documentation and Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 39 Adequate, capped by Secret Scanning, Test Coverage, Dependency Freshness and Outbound HTTP resilience Security and Compliance 72 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) and Dependency Vulnerabilities Domain Modelling 73 Adequate, capped by Rich vs anemic model Event-Driven 100 ★ Exemplary Accessibility 63 Strong Performance 72 Strong

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Production Readiness 39 · counts for 45%Maturity 43 · counts for 25%Accessibility 63 · counts for 14%Performance 72 · counts for 8%Security and Compliance 72 · counts for 4%Domain Modelling 73 · counts for 2%Architecture 74 · counts for 1%Code Health 82 · counts for 1%Event-Driven 100 · counts for 0%

If Production Readiness rose from 39 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 49 to about 56.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Business logic 16%Supporting code 62%Tests 22%

New since the last survey: 69 findings

These 69 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026.

Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Secret Scanning · REDACTED
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CrmDefaultGrantPolicy src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Authorization/CrmDefaultGrantPolicy.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: DeleteCustomerCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/DeleteCustomer/DeleteCustomerCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetCustomerByIdQueryHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetCustomerById/GetCustomerByIdQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetCustomerQueryHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetCustomers/GetCustomerQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: RegisterCustomerCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/TopUpDemoCustomers/TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: TopUpDemoCustomersJobRegistrar src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/TopUpDemoCustomers/TopUpDemoCustomersJobRegistrar.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: UpdateCustomerCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: HasRole src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/IPrincipal.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: OrganizationsDefaultGrantPolicy src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Authorization/OrganizationsDefaultGrantPolicy.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: OnboardingCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Onboarding/OnboardingCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: DeleteEmployeeCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/DeleteEmployee/DeleteEmployeeCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetTeamQueryHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/GetTeam/GetTeamQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: UpdateEmployeeRolesCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/UpdateEmployeeRoles/UpdateEmployeeRolesCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: AcceptInvitationCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/AcceptInvitation/AcceptInvitationCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CancelInvitationCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/CancelInvitation/CancelInvitationCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetPendingInvitationsQueryHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/GetPendingInvitations/GetPendingInvitationsQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: InviteEmployeeCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/InviteEmployee/InviteEmployeeCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: ResendInvitationCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/ResendInvitation/ResendInvitationCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetCurrentUserQueryHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Me/GetCurrentUserQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetPermissionsQueryHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Settings/Permissions/GetPermissions/GetPermissionsQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: ResetPermissionsCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Settings/Permissions/ResetPermissions/ResetPermissionsCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: UpdatePermissionsCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Settings/Permissions/UpdatePermissions/UpdatePermissionsCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetCurrentUserAccessQueryHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/UserAccess/GetCurrentUserAccessQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: SignupCommandHandler src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Signup/SignupCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: EmployeeInvitationResentHandler src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/InviteUser/EmployeeInvitationResentHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: EmployeeInvitedHandler src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/InviteUser/EmployeeInvitedHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CancelAppointmentCommandHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/CancelAppointment/CancelAppointmentCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetAppointmentByIdQueryHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/GetAppointmentById/GetAppointmentByIdQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetAppointmentsQueryHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/GetAppointments/GetAppointmentsQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: RescheduleAppointmentCommandHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/RescheduleAppointment/RescheduleAppointmentCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: ScheduleAppointmentCommandHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/ScheduleAppointment/ScheduleAppointmentCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/TopUpDemoAppointments/TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: TopUpDemoAppointmentsJobRegistrar src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/TopUpDemoAppointments/TopUpDemoAppointmentsJobRegistrar.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CustomerDeletedEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerDeletedEventHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CustomerRegisteredEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerRegisteredEventHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CustomerUpdatedEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerUpdatedEventHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: BookingDefaultGrantPolicy src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Authorization/BookingDefaultGrantPolicy.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: CompanyRegisteredEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/BookingCompanies/ReconcileBookingCompanies/CompanyRegisteredEventHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: GetServiceProvidersQueryHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/GetServiceProviders/GetServiceProvidersQueryHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: EmployeeDeletedEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeDeletedEventHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs
Explicit Debt · Dead code: EmployeeRolesUpdatedEventHandler src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRolesUpdatedEventHandler.cs
Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · REDACTED
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx
Large Files · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx: 627 lines of code src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx
Incompleteness & stubs · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/AnonymousPrincipal.cs
Incompleteness & stubs · Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/AnonymousPrincipal.cs
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/DemoModeExtensions.cs
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/DemoModeExtensions.cs
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input.tsx
Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/textarea.tsx

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 29 findings

These 29 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 7 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CompanyRegistered (Organizations → AppointMe.Api)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type ServiceProviderProjected (Booking → AppointMe.Api)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type AttendeeProjected (Booking → AppointMe.Api)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type EmployeeInvitationResent (Organizations → Identity)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type EmployeeInvited (Organizations → Identity)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CustomerSnapshot (CRM → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CustomerDeletedEvent (CRM → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CustomerRegisteredEvent (CRM → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CustomerUpdatedEvent (CRM → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CompanySnapshot (Organizations → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type CompanyRegistered (Organizations → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type EmployeeDeleted (Organizations → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type EmployeeRegistered (Organizations → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type EmployeeRolesUpdated (Organizations → Booking)
Boundary Type-Coupling · Cross-context type EmployeeSnapshot (Organizations → Booking)
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: REDACTED REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] REDACTED
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/format/input-formatters.ts
Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 10 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx
Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 11, cognitive 8) REDACTED
Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience
Integration-event coupling · Integration event couples to a producer-owned strongly-typed id: EmployeeSnapshot.CompanyId src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/IEmployeeRehydrationSource.cs
Integration-event coupling · Integration event couples to a producer-owned domain type: AuthenticatedUser.Name src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity.Contracts/Identity/AuthenticatedUser.cs
Integration-event coupling · Integration event couples to a producer-owned domain type: AuthenticatedUser.Email src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity.Contracts/Identity/AuthenticatedUser.cs
Async & latency hygiene · Awaits without ConfigureAwait(false)

Rebuild cost: about €39,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€13,000 to €65,000, for 217 to 689 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	Very high, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.7 at a score of 49. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 19,716 lines of product code
Comment lines	The estimate prices 19,592 lines. Comment lines count towards the size of 19,716 lines but aren't priced as work.

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.

Raises the score by about 8 points · Low effort · Secret Scanning

Reconcile the README with reality: README.md changes into `Contoso.Booking/src/Contoso.Booking.Aspire`, but no such folder exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names `api/v1`, but no file or folder `api/v1` exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names TypeScript 5, but the manifest declares `typescript` ^6.0.3; infra/README.md documents the environment variable `PRINCIPAL_ID`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md names `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep`, but no file or folder `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep` exists.

Raises the score by about 6 points · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Record your significant design decisions.

Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Architecture documentation

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €39,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Production Readiness, at 39 (Weak). Production Readiness is about whether the product is ready to run in production and to change without breaking. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Production Readiness also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Production Readiness grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Production Readiness actions in Top priorities.

One cause behind 16 Domain Modelling findings · Common cause

16 findings in the Domain Modelling lens come from the same cause. The code models the business as objects, such as an order or a customer, and each object should guard its own rules: an order, for example, should refuse to be shipped before it has been paid. Here the objects don't do that. Other code can change an object's data directly, so it can put an order into a state the rules forbid. Some objects only hold data, while the rules that should keep that data valid sit elsewhere in the code. Identifiers, such as order numbers and customer numbers, are passed around as plain numbers or text, so nothing stops the code from using one kind where another belongs. Because all of these findings have the same cause, fixing it once, in the business objects themselves, deals with them together.

Based on: Encapsulated state (7 findings) · Rich vs anemic model (8 findings) · Strongly-typed ids (1 finding)

What to do: Give each business object the methods that enforce its rules, such as a method for shipping an order that first checks it has been paid, and let only those methods change its data. Give each kind of identifier a type of its own, so an order number can't be used where a customer number belongs.

If you do one thing first · First action

Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning. Of all the actions in this report, it raises the score most for the work it takes: about 8 points for low effort, because it clears the 8 Secret Scanning findings. The next survey will show the change in the score.

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

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

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

221 modules, with 447 dependencies between them. 4 loops run through 9 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 181 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Roles	2 AppointMe.Shared.Companies	3 AppointMe.Shared.Domain	4 AppointMe.Shared.Domain.Common	5 AppointMe.Shared.Endpoints	6 AppointMe.Shared.Pagination	7 AppointMe.Shared.Users	9 AppointMe.Booking.Attendees	10 AppointMe.Booking.BookingCompanies	11 AppointMe.Booking.ServiceProviders	12 AppointMe.Crm.Database	13 AppointMe.Shared.Authentication	14 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants	15 AppointMe.Identity.Contracts.Identity	16 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions	17 AppointMe.Booking.Appointments	18 AppointMe.Crm.Customers	20 AppointMe.Organizations.Employees	21 AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations	22 AppointMe.Organizations.Settings.Permissions	23 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Principals	26 AppointMe.Booking.Database	28 AppointMe.Organizations.Database	34 AppointMe.Organizations.Companies
1 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Roles
2 AppointMe.Shared.Companies
3 AppointMe.Shared.Domain
4 AppointMe.Shared.Domain.Common
5 AppointMe.Shared.Endpoints
6 AppointMe.Shared.Pagination
7 AppointMe.Shared.Users
8 src.AppointMe_Frontend.src.api.client_schemas
9 AppointMe.Booking.Attendees		1	1	3
10 AppointMe.Booking.BookingCompanies		1
11 AppointMe.Booking.ServiceProviders		1	1	1
12 AppointMe.Crm.Database		1															1
13 AppointMe.Shared.Authentication				2			3
14 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants	1														1
15 AppointMe.Identity.Contracts.Identity				2								1
16 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions	1												1
17 AppointMe.Booking.Appointments		1	1	2				1		1					1
18 AppointMe.Crm.Customers		1	1	5		2					1				1
19 AppointMe.Identity.Users			1	2			1					1		5
20 AppointMe.Organizations.Employees	2	2	1	2			1						1		2								1
21 AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations	1	1	1	1			1						1		1
22 AppointMe.Organizations.Settings.Permissions	4	4											1		2
23 AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Principals	4	1													5
24 AppointMe.Booking.Appointments.Database		1		1												7
25 AppointMe.Booking.Dashboard.GetDashboardStats		1		4	1					1											1
26 AppointMe.Booking.Database		1						1	1	1						1
27 AppointMe.Crm.Customers.Database		1		1		2											8
28 AppointMe.Organizations.Database		1																1	1	1				1
29 AppointMe.Booking.Appointments.RescheduleAppointment		1		2	1					2						1					1	1
30 AppointMe.Booking.Appointments.ScheduleAppointment		3		4	1			2		2						2					1	1
31 AppointMe.Booking.Appointments.SeedDemoAppointments		2						1		1						1						1
32 AppointMe.Booking.Attendees.ReconcileAttendees		1		6				1														6
33 AppointMe.Booking.BookingCompanies.ReconcileBookingCompanies		2							1													3
34 AppointMe.Organizations.Companies	1	1	1				1											2					1
35 AppointMe.Organizations.Employees.GetTeam		1			1	3						1						1			1		1
36 AppointMe.Organizations.Infrastructure	1	1										2			2					1	4		1
37 AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations.InviteEmployee	4	3		2	1		2					1							2		1		1
38 AppointMe.Organizations.Settings.Permissions.ResetPermissions		1			1		2					1								1	1		1
39 AppointMe.Organizations.Settings.Permissions.UpdatePermissions	1	1			1		2					1			3					3	1		1
40 AppointMe.Organizations.Companies.Onboarding				4	1		2					1						3					1	4

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · .NET / C# Cyclomatic Complexity 9.0 D2 · .NET / C# Cognitive Complexity 9.0 D4 · .NET / C# Code Duplication 9.5 GD1 · Repo Unfinished & placeholder code 10.0 IC1 · Repo Incompleteness & stubs 8.3 R1 · React / TS Type Safety 9.9 R10 · React / TS Code Duplication 8.3 R2 · React / TS Cyclomatic Complexity 9.9 R3 · React / TS Large Files 9.8 R7 · React / TS Dead Code 10.0 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X2 · Repo Cancellation propagation 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X3 · Repo Exception handling 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X32 · Repo Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 10.0

The Bad

D3 · .NET / C# God Classes 5.4 D17 · .NET / C# Explicit Debt 6.2

At a glance — Architecture · 74% · Adequate · gated by R9 ·

The Good

D5 · .NET / C# Coupling 10.0 D6 · .NET / C# Cohesion (LCOM4) 10.0 D22 · .NET / C# Internal API Consistency 9.0 D23 · .NET / C# Boundary Type-Coupling 10.0 D26 · .NET / C# Project Cohesion 7.8 D35 · .NET / C# Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 7.4 AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX5 · Repo Architecture & structure 10.0 AX6 · Repo Interface segregation 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0 AX9 · Repo CQS / query purity 10.0

The Ugly

R9 · React / TS Circular Imports 2.3

At a glance — Maturity · 43% · Adequate · gated by M2, M4 ·

The Good

D15 · .NET / C# Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · .NET / C# Documentation Quality 8.5 D21 · .NET / C# Naming Consistency 10.0 D24 · .NET / C# Comment Value 9.0 D34 · .NET / C# Knowledge Freshness 10.0 M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 7.4 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0

The Ugly

M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 2.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 39% · Adequate · gated by D13, R4, R5, P7 ·

The Good

D9 · .NET / C# Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · .NET / C# Test Quality 10.0 D11 · .NET / C# Test Reliability 10.0 D14 · .NET / C# License Compliance 10.0 ED5 · Repo Idempotency 9.6 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P2 · Repo Observability 8.1 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 8.0 P5 · Repo DR & Backup 7.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 10.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0 R6 · React / TS Tooling 10.0 R8 · React / TS Dependency Hygiene 8.0

The Bad

R5 · React / TS Dependency Freshness 3.5

The Ugly

D13 · .NET / C# Secret Scanning 0.0 P7 · Repo Outbound HTTP resilience 3.0 R4 · React / TS Test Coverage 0.0

At a glance — Security · 72% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30 ·

The Good

D28 · .NET / C# Secrets (history) 7.0 D43 · .NET / C# Malicious Dependencies 10.0 D44 · .NET / C# Platform End-of-Life 10.0 C2 · Repo Access Controls 10.0 S1 · Repo Web-Security Posture 9.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0

The Bad

C1 · Repo Data Protection 6.5

The Ugly

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 0.1 D30 · .NET / C# Dependency Vulnerabilities 1.6 D31 · .NET / C# IaC & Container Security 4.2 X24 · Repo Document value interpolated into markup unescaped 3.5

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 73% · Adequate · gated by DM4 ·

The Good

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM10 · Repo One transaction, one aggregate 9.6 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 10.0 DM12 · Repo Ambient inputs in the domain 10.0 DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 9.4 DM3 · Repo Integration-event coupling 10.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 6.5 DM6 · Repo Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary 10.0 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0 DM9 · Repo Scattered domain decisions 9.6

The Ugly

DM4 · Repo Rich vs anemic model 3.0

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ED1 · Repo Handler temporal coupling 10.0 ED3 · Repo Event naming 9.8 ED4 · Repo Outbox / dual-write 10.0

At a glance — Accessibility · 63% · Strong ·

The Good

AC3 · Repo Page structure 10.0 AC4 · Repo Keyboard semantics 10.0 AC5 · Repo ARIA correctness 10.0

The Bad

AC2 · Repo Forms & labels 5.2 AC6 · Repo Visual & motion safety 5.3 AC7 · Repo A11y enforcement 4.0

At a glance — Performance · 72% · Strong ·

The Good

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.6 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 10.0

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 category	Findings	Severity
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	56	High / Critical
A05:2025 — Injection	27	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	17	High / Critical
A07:2025 — Authentication Failures	12	High / Critical

Roadmap

Immediately resolve the eight leaked secrets in configuration files to secure the application, then reconcile the README and documentation with the actual codebase to eliminate misleading references. Establish a dedicated folder for architecture decision records to capture key design choices, and begin adding tests for the unreached production modules to improve coverage. Finally, implement standard resilience handlers for all outbound HTTP clients to prevent external dependencies from causing outages.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (2), REDACTED.	+8.2 pts	Low	Secret Scanning
Reconcile the README with reality: README.md changes into `Contoso.Booking/src/Contoso.Booking.Aspire`, but no such folder exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names `api/v1`, but no file or folder `api/v1` exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names TypeScript 5, but the manifest declares `typescript` ^6.0.3; infra/README.md documents the environment variable `PRINCIPAL_ID`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md names `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep`, but no file or folder `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep` exists.	+5.6 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.	+4.5 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).	+4.1 pts	Medium	Test Coverage
Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with 2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md.	+1.2 pts	Low	Documentation Quality
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.	+2.2 pts	Medium	Outbound HTTP resilience
Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.	+2.0 pts	Medium	Dependency Freshness
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.	+1.3 pts	Medium	A11y enforcement

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 118 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 2% slop · 8% mixed · 90% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	0.4	Slop	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	0.8	Slop	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Mixed	Secret Scanning: Leaked secret: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.1	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.1	Mixed	Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.6	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.7	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.1	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.3	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.3	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
REDACTED	6.3	Near-clean	IaC & Container Security: Medium IaC: REDACTED
src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerRegisteredEventHandler.cs	6.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: CustomerRegisteredEventHandler
src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs	6.7	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: Dead code: EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler
REDACTED	7.2	Near-clean	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 58

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 239

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 45

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 6

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

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. 106 of 113 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 7 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.9 — 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 — 113 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D13D14D15D17D19D21D22D23D24D26D28D29D30D31D34D35D43D44AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C2DM1DM10DM11DM12DM2DM3DM4DM5DM6DM8DM9ED1ED3ED4ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P5P6P7P8PF1PF2PF3R1R10R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9S1X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X2X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5

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

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, 323 of 342 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.)
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.

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.

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
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a160a9-f6c6-7890-96f0-ed4063a7b1ff.

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.

D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `dotnet list package` did not return usable output (restore or query failed); no outdated/vulnerable/deprecated data to assess. The tool said: `dotnet list package` exited 1 with no output.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (3 contributor(s) across 124 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 97% of the history; the other 2 hold 1.5% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 1 deducted marker(s) and the 1.9/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .tsx (9,795 lines, 50% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `src/AppointMe.Api/Antiforgery/AntiforgeryMiddleware.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/CurrentIdentityResolver.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/EntraExternalIdDemoUserAuthenticator.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/KeycloakDemoUserAuthenticator.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/HttpIdentityFactory.cs`, … (+115 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via DockerCompose (REDACTED). compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — sqlserver Pulling keycloak Pulling mailpit Pulling mailpit Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden keycloak Error context canceled sqlserver Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: keycloak Pulling mailpit Pulling sqlserver Pulling mailpit Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden sqlserver Error context canceled keycloak Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped.
R10 Code Duplication — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. 2 further occurrence(s) are not listed individually; the score already reflects all 42.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so 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.
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.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
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 on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
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.
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.
D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
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.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (7): D19, D21, D22, D24, D26, ED5, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.0 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was chart.ChartTooltipContent at 31.

chart.ChartTooltipContent (cyclomatic 31)REDACTED:95

trend-chart.TrendChart (cyclomatic 29)src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72

actions-cell.ActionsCell (cyclomatic 18)src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/actions-cell.tsx:22

What to do

Bring the 3 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with chart.ChartTooltipContent (cyclomatic 31), trend-chart.TrendChart (cyclomatic 29), actions-cell.ActionsCell (cyclomatic 18). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.0 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was trend-chart.TrendChart at 28.

trend-chart.TrendChart (cognitive 28)src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72

chart.ChartTooltipContent (cognitive 27)REDACTED:95

invite-employee-dialog.InviteEmployeeDialog (cognitive 19)src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:36

signup-form.SignupForm (cognitive 17)src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:22

What to do

Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with trend-chart.TrendChart (cognitive 28), chart.ChartTooltipContent (cognitive 27), invite-employee-dialog.InviteEmployeeDialog (cognitive 19). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.0 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 5.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

10 over-large unit(s) detected — types, modules or files that carry too much.

FunctionTooLong: schedule-appointment-dialog.ScheduleAppointmentDialog · ×9src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:51

FileTooLong: ui/sidebar.tsxsrc/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx

What to do

Resolve the 9 FunctionTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx, trend-chart.tsx, edit-customer-dialog.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with sidebar.tsx. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.5 / 10Stronggated by 10 serious findings✓ 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 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

10 duplicated block group(s) detected. Measured on part of this repository only: .tsx (50% of production source) was not exposed to THIS dimension's token comparison and is not in this count; duplication there is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream.

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs:11

Duplicated block (14–20 lines × 2)src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/EntraExternalId/EntraExternalIdClaimsTransformer.cs:9

Duplicated block (18 lines × 3)src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:15

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2)src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/Database/UserTypeConfiguration.cs:31

Duplicated block (15 lines × 5)src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:21

+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs, BookingCompanyTypeConfiguration.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (14–20 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with EntraExternalIdClaimsTransformer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

Off the main sequence: AppointMe.Sharedsrc/AppointMe.Shared/AppointMe.Shared.csproj:1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 15 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

172 test methods: 172 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 172 tests.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

6 secret(s) detected.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 8 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with REDACTED (5), REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

0 of 250 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 48 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 202 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt6.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 deducted debt markers + 78 dead symbols across 8910 LoC in the .NET projects (1.9/KLoC) → score 6.2. Measured on the .NET source only: .tsx (50% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).

NoWarnInCsprojDirectory.Build.props:13

Dead code: CrmDefaultGrantPolicy · ×78src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Authorization/CrmDefaultGrantPolicy.cs:7

What to do

Resolve the 78 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with CrmDefaultGrantPolicy.cs, DeleteCustomerCommandHandler.cs, DeleteCustomerEndpoint.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (78 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Directory.Build.props. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ 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's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: the READMEs for each implementation plan (SqlDurable transport removal, footer build version, free-tier Cloudflare worker, GitHub Actions CI/CD) are task-by-task execution plans with goals, architecture, global constraints, a tech stack, and an explicit spec link. The architecture/design docs (16 total) cover the broader project scope, decisions, and ordering constraints for each plan. XML-doc coverage is low across packages but all visible documents meet quality. The documentation is excellent for its focus on CI/CD pipeline and secret-scan workflows, with a dedicated README rework documenting GitHub-first setup. The design documents are well-structured and approved (footer build version, free-tier Cloudflare worker devtest, GitHub Actions CI/CD), each carrying the exact scope it describes plus an approval date and deliverables list. The XML-doc coverage is low (<2%), reflecting the project's primarily procedural documentation rather than a comprehensive reference set. (7 of 20 sampled documents could not be assessed: 1 of 3 evaluation groups failed.)

Documentation: no project overviewdocs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md

XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Aspire · ×11REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with 2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D22 · Internal API ConsistencyStronggated by 1 serious finding◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

1 API inconsistencies across 27 exposed types.

Inconsistent pagination and filtering strategy across rehydration sources. Customer source supports pagination/filtering, Company source returns all (no pagination), Employee source returns all for a company (no pagination). This suggests a lack of unified contract for bulk data retrieval.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent pagination and filtering strategy across rehydration… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.

Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.

Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.

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

No domain types are scored-flagged across 8 context boundaries; 2 contract project(s) carry advisory strong-ID notes.

Identity: 2 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums

Organizations: 4 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment ValueExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

28 valuable / 0 redundant across 74 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 of 18 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion

What to do

Resolve the 1 Projects may be oversized for their cohesion finding(s) in Project Cohesion. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)7.0 / 10Adequategated by 3 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

3 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 3 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.1 / 10Critical✓ 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 0.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

27 finding(s): 0 critical, 25 high, 2 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 123 file(s) — `src/AppointMe.Api.Tests/Authorization/SuperAdminAuthorizationHandlerTests.cs` (lines 58–59, line 65), `src/AppointMe.Api/Antiforgery/AntiforgeryMiddleware.cs` (lines 7–9, line 10), `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/CurrentIdentityResolver.cs` (lines 3–4, lines 5–6), `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/EntraExternalIdDemoUserAuthenticator.cs` (lines 14–15, line 16, line 17, …), `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/KeycloakDemoUserAuthenticator.cs` (lines 9–11, lines 12–13), … (+118 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 113 of those file(s) — `src/AppointMe.Api.Tests/Authorization/SuperAdminAuthorizationHandlerTests.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Antiforgery/AntiforgeryMiddleware.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/CurrentIdentityResolver.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/EntraExternalIdDemoUserAuthenticator.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/KeycloakDemoUserAuthenticator.cs`, … (+108 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 5 of those file(s) — `src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Errors/AccessDeniedException.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Errors/ConflictException.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Errors/NotFoundException.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Errors/ValidationException.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Shared/Pagination/PagedResult.cs` — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 1 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 18 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (8), REDACTED (6), REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (18 issue-level).
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities1.6 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir and Erlang via Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex (and Erlang, whose `rebar.lock` syft first converts to a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the lock), Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle (and Scala, whose sbt build's pinned direct declarations are written into a CycloneDX SBOM the scanner reads, with rows attributed back to the build file), npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 1.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

17 finding(s): 0 critical, 12 high, 5 medium, 0 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 12 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (8), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D31 · IaC & Container Security4.2 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

56 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 54 medium, 1 low.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 54 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED (25), REDACTED (10), REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (54 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

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

Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked. Counted over 21 of the 472 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 4 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AC2 · Forms & labels5.2 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, links have an accessible name, a click handler on a plain element names the control it declares, fieldsets have a non-empty legend, known UI-library field components carry a label prop, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.

Coverage: Population: form controls, buttons, links, fieldsets and known UI-library field components in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx); components, hidden subtrees and spread/dynamic-attribute elements are skipped, so a control whose label arrives through a spread or a runtime expression is deliberately not judged. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id, and nothing it renders carries one either (a name prop is the form-submission key, not a label). The text inside it does not stand in for one: these compound APIs render a trigger with role="combobox" (or role="button"), and those roles take their name from the AUTHOR, not from their content — so the words on screen never reach the accessibility tree as a name. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed. (×2) — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:166, src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx:19

What to do

Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC3 · Page structure10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language (well-formed BCP-47) and a non-empty title, expose exactly one main landmark and a sane heading order with non-empty headings, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes, give data tables header cells, and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.

Coverage: Population: the PARSED MARKUP documents (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx). The page-level checks — lang, title, single main landmark — fire ONCE PER FULL DOCUMENT (an <html> root) and never on a partial or component fragment, so a repo of fragments is assessed only on the per-element checks (heading order, table headers, iframe titles, meta-refresh, zoom). Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC4 · Keyboard semantics10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether interactive behaviour is keyboard-reachable — no click handler on a non-interactive element lacking a role, tabindex and key handler, no element the repo's own CSS styles `cursor: pointer` without giving it any of the three, no unfocusable element whose only binding is a mouse enter/leave pair or a double-click, no positive tabindex, no href-less anchor, no placeholder-href (#/javascript) link acting as a button. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: click handlers on non-interactive elements lacking role+tabindex+key handler, positive tabindex values, and href-less anchors. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.

Coverage: Population: elements that pose a keyboard-semantics question, in the PARSED MARKUP files only (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) — a non-natively-interactive element carrying a click handler, a double-click or hover enter/leave binding, a pointer-only gesture on a tabindex="0" element, or `cursor: pointer` from the repo's own CSS; an href-less or placeholder-href (#, javascript:) anchor; and any element with a positive tabindex. Natively interactive elements used correctly (<button>, <a href>, form controls) are NOT in the population — there is nothing to judge — so a page of nothing but correct controls gives AC4 nothing to measure. Keyboard reachability is judged from the markup, never from a rendered page. ★ An interactive element declared in a tagged-template (html`…`) or hyperscript frontend is NOT in this population — no producer reads either — so an empty population is reported as an analyzer gap, never as "this repository has no interactive elements".

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC5 · ARIA correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, valid (non-misspelled) aria-* attribute names, in-enum values for token-typed aria-* attributes, and no aria-hidden on (or wrapping) a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.

Coverage: Population: elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx) that carry a role or an aria-* attribute; roles and token values are checked against the ARIA enums exhaustively within that set. An expression-valued (dynamic) role or aria-* value is skipped rather than guessed, and markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC6 · Visual & motion safety5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.

Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.

Coverage: Population: styled elements in the PARSED MARKUP files (.html/.htm/.cshtml/.razor/.vue/.svelte/.jsx/.tsx), plus in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files and CSS-in-JS literals. Colour contrast is computed from LITERAL colour pairs only (hex/rgb/hsl/named, including var() tokens and Tailwind neutral utilities) — computed, runtime-themed and external-CDN colour is never resolved, so this is a partial read of contrast by construction. Markup built in script — tagged-template (html`…`) UIs and hyperscript DOM factories — is not read at all.

<input> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2). — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input.tsx:6
<textarea> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2). — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/textarea.tsx:6

What to do

Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.

Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.

Coverage: Population: the repository's own tooling configuration — lint config, test and CI files — NOT the markup. It is read for a configured accessibility checker and an automated accessibility assertion (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse, or a native-toolkit equivalent), and it credits an INVOCATION, never a mention: a licence filename, an import comment or a doc reference earns no rung. Enforcement configured entirely outside the repository leaves no evidence here and cannot be credited.

No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 127 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

What to do

Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does.

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

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

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

The namespaces AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions ↔ AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions → AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants (AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.PermissionRegistry → AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants.IDefaultGrantPolicy, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Permissions/PermissionRegistry.cs:1
The namespaces AppointMe.Crm.Customers ↔ AppointMe.Crm.Database depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Crm.Customers → AppointMe.Crm.Database (AppointMe.Crm.Customers.CustomerRehydrationSource → AppointMe.Crm.Database.CrmDbContext, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerRehydrationSource.cs:3
The namespaces AppointMe.Identity.Database ↔ AppointMe.Identity.Users depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Identity.Database → AppointMe.Identity.Users (AppointMe.Identity.Database.IdentityDbContext → AppointMe.Identity.Users.User, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Database/IdentityDbContext.cs:1
The namespaces AppointMe.Organizations.Companies ↔ AppointMe.Organizations.Database ↔ AppointMe.Organizations.Employees depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Organizations.Companies → AppointMe.Organizations.Database (AppointMe.Organizations.Companies.CompanyRehydrationSource → AppointMe.Organizations.Database.OrganizationsDbContext, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface. — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/CompanyRehydrationSource.cs:2

What to do

Break namespace cycles inside a project by moving the shared type to a namespace both sides can use, or by inverting the back edge behind an interface.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface declared-member counts (accessors fold into their property/event); fat-interface threshold (over 15 declared members) flagged per type. Each finding also reports the distinct-OPERATION count — members counted by name, so an overload group counts once — which decides whether it states the caller-side ISP harm or the implementer-side burden of an overload set. TypeScript: exported interfaces that declare behaviour, counted over their REQUIRED operations (method signatures and function-typed properties with no `?`, once per signature) — data-shape interfaces and ambient .d.ts declarations are outside the population; JavaScript declares no interfaces and is not applicable. Deterministic, type-level.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

C1 · Data Protection6.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

What to do

Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.

Do you agree with this assessment?

C2 · Access Controls10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether a single operation mutates more than one aggregate root. An aggregate is a consistency boundary, so saving two together fuses them into one — the second's invariants come to depend on the first's transaction, and the pair can no longer be separated. Reads of other aggregates are not counted.

Method: Neutral body surface (DDD-gated): every method body scanned for repository WRITE calls (Add/Update/Save/Remove/Delete/Insert/Store and their async forms), keyed on the ARGUMENT type rather than the repository type — three `IRepository<T>` writes collapse to one repository but are three distinct aggregates. Reads (Get/Find/Load/Query) are excluded, so loading another aggregate for context never counts. Score is offending methods over methods that write at all. Deterministic.

`OnboardingCommandHandler.HandleAsync` saves `Company`, `Employee` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event. — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Onboarding/OnboardingCommandHandler.cs:7

What to do

Mutate one aggregate per operation and let the others follow from a domain event — the second aggregate reaching consistency a moment later is the design, not a compromise.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM12 · Ambient inputs in the domain10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether domain types receive the time and randomness their rules depend on, rather than reading the process clock or a global random source directly — an ambient read makes the rule it feeds untestable at the instant that matters and lets two reads inside one operation disagree.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated, C#/VB only): domain-layer types scanned for ambient reads — DateTime/DateTimeOffset.Now/UtcNow/Today, Random.Shared, new Random(), Stopwatch.GetTimestamp — resolved against the semantic model, with a comment/string-stripped token fallback only where resolution fails. Body reads are scored; field/property initialisers are surfaced unscored. Apply/When folds excluded (ES1 owns them). Deterministic, symbol-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. An id wrapper is recognised by VALUE SEMANTICS, not by being a struct — a record struct, a record class (`record ApartmentId(Guid Value)`) or a class declared by a typed-id base (`class MemberId : TypedIdValueBase`) all count, while a plain mutable class (reference equality) and a verb-phrase query record (`GetCustomerById`) do not. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

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

`UserRegisteredEvent.UserId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that. — src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/RegisterUser/UserRegisteredEvent.cs:5

What to do

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM3 · Integration-event coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether cross-context integration events stay loosely coupled — no producer-owned enums/domain types leaking to consumers. Shared-kernel/contracts types are allowed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): integration-event properties scanned for producer-domain type/enum leaks versus primitives and shared-kernel types. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

`Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Customer.cs:4
`Company` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Company.cs:7
`Employee` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Employee.cs:6
`EmployeeInvitation` is an aggregate/entity with 9 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/EmployeeInvitation.cs:6
`User` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/User.cs:6
`Appointment` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/Appointment.cs:6
`Attendee` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Attendee.cs:4
`ServiceProvider` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProvider.cs:4

What to do

Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state6.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

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

`Customer` exposes publicly writable state (Name, DateOfBirth, Gender, Email, IsDeleted). — src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Customer.cs:4
`Company` exposes publicly writable state (PrimaryOwnerEmployeeId). — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Company.cs:7
`Employee` exposes publicly writable state (Roles, IsDeleted). — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Employee.cs:6
`EmployeeInvitation` exposes publicly writable state (Status, AcceptedAt). — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/EmployeeInvitation.cs:6
`Appointment` exposes publicly writable state (ProviderId, Period, Status). — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/Appointment.cs:6
`Attendee` exposes publicly writable state (Name, DateOfBirth, Email, IsDeleted). — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Attendee.cs:4
`ServiceProvider` exposes publicly writable state (Name, IsDeleted). — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProvider.cs:4

What to do

Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether one domain rule is decided — or one measurement produced — in more than one place, rather than living on the type that owns it.

Method: Neutral body surface plus Roslyn (DDD-gated), two arms. DECISION (Roslyn only): a predicate over a domain type's members judged in two or more types, where none of those decisions live on the owning type — operands of comparisons and relational property patterns only, so a member merely passed as an argument is not judged. DERIVATION: a plain all-numeric carrier of ≥2 members, with no base type and exactly one constructor, CONSTRUCTED as the result of a method (returned or assigned, never inline as an argument) in two or more types other than its own — the same measurement produced twice, which centralising the judgement does not fix. DERIVATION runs on every language whose frontend declares the produced-or-passed fact per construction (Roslyn and the Java sidecar today); a target with only the derivation arm carries an engine gap naming the decision arm as not assessed, and a frontend that declares nothing keeps the dimension not measured rather than clean. Single-member rules, test code and generated code are out of population for both. Advisory.

AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations.EmployeeInvitation's [Email, Status] are judged in AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations.GetPendingInvitations.GetPendingInvitationsQueryHandler, AppointMe.Organizations.Me.GetCurrentUserQueryHandler — the same decision, restated. Every copy is a chance to drift, and copies drift silently because each one looks correct on its own. Move the judgement onto the type that owns the members and let the call sites ask it.

What to do

Move each repeated judgement onto the type that owns the members it reads, so the rule has one home and cannot drift.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED1 · Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED3 · Event naming9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event-Driven — Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge — low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

`EmployeeInvitationResent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Invitations/Events/EmployeeInvitationResent.cs:5

What to do

Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED4 · Outbox / dual-write10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ED5 · Idempotency9.6 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

`TopUpDemoCustomers.TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/TopUpDemoCustomers/TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.cs:10
`TopUpDemoAppointments.TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/TopUpDemoAppointments/TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler.cs:9

What to do

Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs8.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

`HasRole` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/AnonymousPrincipal.cs:8
`HasPermission` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. — src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/AnonymousPrincipal.cs:9

What to do

Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)7.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 17 of 18 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation2.0 / 10Weak✓ 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 — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy0.0 / 10Critical◐ 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.md changes into `Contoso.Booking/src/Contoso.Booking.Aspire`, but no such folder exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — README.md:27
docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names `api/v1`, but no file or folder `api/v1` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md:32
docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names TypeScript 5, but the manifest declares `typescript` ^6.0.3. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md:225
infra/README.md documents the environment variable `PRINCIPAL_ID`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — infra/README.md:137
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md names `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep`, but no file or folder `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md:54
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md names `.gitlab-ci.yml`, but no file or folder `.gitlab-ci.yml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md:27
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-free-tier-cloudflare-worker-design.md names `wrangler.toml`, but no file or folder `wrangler.toml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-free-tier-cloudflare-worker-design.md:35
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-github-actions-cicd-design.md names `.gitlab-ci.yml`, but no file or folder `.gitlab-ci.yml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-github-actions-cicd-design.md:9
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-10-infra-readme-github-first-design.md documents the environment variable `HANGFIRE_ADMINS`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-10-infra-readme-github-first-design.md:21
docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-22-dotnet-new-template-package-design.md names `appointme.schemas.ts`, but no file or folder `appointme.schemas.ts` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-22-dotnet-new-template-package-design.md:242

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README.md changes into `Contoso.Booking/src/Contoso.Booking.Aspire`, but no such folder exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names `api/v1`, but no file or folder `api/v1` exists; docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names TypeScript 5, but the manifest declares `typescript` ^6.0.3; infra/README.md documents the environment variable `PRINCIPAL_ID`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md names `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep`, but no file or folder `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep` exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

27/27 types (100%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability8.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 5/7 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 7, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback8.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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

The pipeline declares a deployment environment, but whether required reviewers / protection rules are attached to it lives in repository settings we cannot read — confirm the gate is enforced before production promotion.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P5 · DR & Backup7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

What to do

Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Source scan: outbound HTTP clients and what bounds them — resilience handlers (Polly, AddStandardResilienceHandler) on .NET; on Go, the JVM, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, PHP, Rust, Elixir, Swift, Dart and Erlang, a timeout, deadline, retry or breaker beside each call, or a process-wide client default (a framework-wide deadline such as Drupal core's, Laravel's or actix's awc counts). Exhaustive, deterministic.

`services.AddHttpClient<IDemoUserAuthenticator, KeycloakDemoUserAuthenticator>()` registers an outbound HTTP client with no resilience handler, retry policy or timeout of its own in its builder chain. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default). — src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/DemoModeExtensions.cs:22
`services.AddHttpClient<IDemoUserAuthenticator, EntraExternalIdDemoUserAuthent...` registers an outbound HTTP client with no resilience handler, retry policy or timeout of its own in its builder chain. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default). — src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/DemoModeExtensions.cs:25

What to do

Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or a Polly policy and an explicit timeout) to each client registration flagged here, so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI; off .NET, the same ladder over Go testing.B, Rust criterion/#[bench]/divan, JMH/kotlinx-benchmark, pytest-benchmark/asv/pyperf, tinybench/mitata/vitest bench/benchmark.js and Swift package-benchmark — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

Add a benchmarking harness for the hot paths and run it in CI to catch regressions (for .NET, a BenchmarkDotNet project with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations).

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — in .NET Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit; off .NET, with comments and strings blanked, Go's sync.Pool, preallocated slices/maps, Grow, strconv.Append* and buf[:0] reuse; the JVM's NIO buffer views, MemorySegment, primitive collections, pools and literal presizes (plus Kotlin primitive arrays and value classes, Scala AnyVal and @specialized); Swift's reserveCapacity, ContiguousArray, withUnsafe* access and ~Copyable. Activated off .NET on the same floor (400 lines, and benchmarks or 8 uses); Rust and garbage-collected scripting languages are not applicable. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 15 use(s) across 12,230 production line(s) (~1.2/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code stays responsive — it avoids sync-over-async blocking (a .NET .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult(), a time.sleep or blocking HTTP call inside a Python coroutine, a *Sync call inside an async JavaScript function, block_on inside a Rust async fn, runBlocking inside a Kotlin suspend function, block() inside a Reactor publisher) that stalls a thread or event loop and risks deadlock, and, where the code is a reusable library on .NET, awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) so it never captures and stalls its caller's context.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking counted everywhere — .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in .NET; off .NET, read from the language model, a blocking call inside an async function (Python, TS/JS, Rust, Kotlin, Swift, Dart) or inside a Java method returning a Reactor Mono/Flux or a Scala method returning a Future or effect — and, for a .NET library with ≥5 awaits, the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R1 · Type Safety9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.

Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.

What to do

Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R10 · Code Duplication8.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386): a block is reported only where its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or were renamed as they were pasted but kept most of their constants, and where the copies carry enough code to stand on their own or the copied extent reaches 30 lines — so a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are both found and deliberately not reported, and a clean R10 is not a claim that nothing was copied.

Method: Near-exact copy-pasted blocks of substantial extent across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Masking finds the candidates; a block is reported when its copies still agree on most of their own identifiers and literals, or when a renamed copy still agrees on most of its constants, AND the copies carry enough code to stand on their own — or when the copied extent reaches 30 lines. So a re-implementation sharing neither names nor values, and a small pasted declaration, are deliberately not counted. Deterministic.

11 duplicated blocks under src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories appointments, auth, customers, invitations, onboarding, team — 6 of them are reported below, and 5 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 11 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 11 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 11 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:95
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:47 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:75 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 708 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:47
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:81 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:39 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:81
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:104 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/menubar.tsx:123 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:104
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:35 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:36 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 317 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:35
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:117 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:85
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:42 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dialog.tsx:64 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:42
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:25 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:153 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/menubar.tsx:172 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:25
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/carousel.tsx:161 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/carousel.tsx:191 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/carousel.tsx:161
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:95 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/team.tsx:122 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 125 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:95
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:92 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:131 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:92
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:72 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sheet.tsx:76 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:72
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert.tsx:29 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:110 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input-group.tsx:117 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/table.tsx:47 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert.tsx:29
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx:7 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/columns.tsx:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx:7
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:157 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:129 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:157
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:5 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:168 · +7 more site(s) not listed — the 11 copies are spread across 11 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/button-group.tsx:23 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:75 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/button-group.tsx:23
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:24 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/actions-cell.tsx:84 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:24
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/format/timezone.ts:1 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:34 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/format/timezone.ts:1
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/empty.tsx:42 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/item.tsx:80 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/empty.tsx:42
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/hover-card.tsx:7 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/popover.tsx:7 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/hover-card.tsx:7
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:111 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:98 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:117 — the 3 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:111
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:214 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:117 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:214
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:56 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:34 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 53 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:56
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:73 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input-group.tsx:55 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:73
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:241 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:75 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:118 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:102 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:241
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:45 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert.tsx:23 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/card.tsx:36 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dialog.tsx:67 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 7 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:45
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:150 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/menubar.tsx:169 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/resizable.tsx:10 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:150
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/select.tsx:117 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/select.tsx:129 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/select.tsx:117
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:76 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:64 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:89 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:76
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:103 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:106 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:103
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/accordion.tsx:10 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:67 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:5 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:91 · +9 more site(s) not listed — the 13 copies are spread across 12 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/accordion.tsx:10
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:51 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:108 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:178 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dialog.tsx:73 · +10 more site(s) not listed — the 14 copies are spread across 11 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:51
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/auth/signup/signup.tsx:10 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/invitations/invitations.tsx:59 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/onboarding/onboarding.tsx:8 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/auth/signup/signup.tsx:10
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:63 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:96 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/modal-dialog/confirm-dialog.tsx:30 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:63
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/sidebar/nav-user.tsx:35 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/sidebar/nav-user.tsx:53 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/sidebar/nav-user.tsx:35
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:9 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:168 · +8 more site(s) not listed — the 12 copies are spread across 12 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:1 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/label.tsx:3 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/resizable.tsx:2 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/switch.tsx:3 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:1
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/breadcrumb.tsx:18 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/card.tsx:25 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/card.tsx:43 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:67 · +3 more site(s) not listed — the 7 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/breadcrumb.tsx:18
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:73 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/radio-group.tsx:9 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sheet.tsx:77 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/tabs.tsx:8 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:73

What to do

Act on each finding's own remediation rather than one rule: the move depends on what recurs. Where the copies are executable blocks, give the shared part one home and call it from each site; where they are declarations, a listing, a specialisation already delegating to its base, or one shape repeated per entity, there is no call site and the move is a shared type, a generated set or a factory — sometimes there is nothing to extract.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.

Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.

TrendChart has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72
(anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:160
ActionsCell has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/actions-cell.tsx:22
getPayloadConfigFromPayload has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes. — REDACTED:289

What to do

Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R3 · Large Files9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — How many source files exceed the large-file threshold.

Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.

src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx has 627 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module. — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx:1

What to do

Split each oversized file along the responsibilities already in it, into smaller focused modules in the same package.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R4 · Test Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Static test reachability (D-386): the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything.

Method: Static test reachability: the share of production files reachable from any test via the import graph — measured without running anything. Deterministic.

0% of 157 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph — 'production' here is the RESIDUE: every source file left once tests, tooling, generated output, config, declarations and declaration-only modules, fixture corpora, type fixtures, behaviour-free data modules, re-export barrels, registration/constant data modules and service workers are set aside, so the percentage is taken over a smaller denominator than the workspace's file count

What to do

Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).

Do you agree with this assessment?

R5 · Dependency Freshness3.5 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — How outdated the npm dependencies are (a maturity signal). JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities).

Method: npm dependency staleness from manifest/registry metadata (a maturity signal; JS/npm CVEs are scored separately in D30, which answers dependency vulnerabilities for every ecosystem). Deterministic.

65 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30

What to do

Bump outdated dependencies to current versions to limit upgrade debt.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R6 · Tooling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — Whether the project wires up test, lint and typecheck — detected from each REDACTED script's COMMAND (eslint / tsc / vitest / jest / playwright), not just its name, and corroborated against CI-workflow invocations so a tool run only in CI still counts.

Method: REDACTED scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R7 · Dead Code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).

Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.

1 file(s) (~17 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R8 · Dependency Hygiene8.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.

Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.

Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it. (×3)

What to do

Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.

Do you agree with this assessment?

R9 · Circular Imports2.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.

Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.

src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/header.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/router/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/router/router.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/layout.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/header.tsx (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 9 files) — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/header.tsx:2
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/can.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/can.tsx (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files) — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/can.tsx:2
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/mode-toggle.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/index.ts — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/index.ts:2
src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files) — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx:1

What to do

Break each cycle by extracting the shared piece into a module both sides can import.

Do you agree with this assessment?

S1 · Web-Security Posture9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir source itself (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not) for the arms that hold whether or not the code serves HTTP: a weak hash or cipher, key material fixed in the source, a TLS client that accepts any certificate, and (JavaScript/TypeScript, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Elixir) an obsolete TLS version; the server controls are not assessed there, and a Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Elixir repository that serves no HTTP of its own is N/A on them. Deterministic.

Set: Referrer-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options. Missing: Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security — the four headers that carry the points of this card's security-headers term (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options), 0.5 each. (−1.0 on this card.) — src/AppointMe.Api/SecurityHeaders/SecurityHeadersMiddleware.cs:27

What to do

Add Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security beside the headers already set; Content-Security-Policy is the one that pays for itself first, then Strict-Transport-Security, then nosniff and a frame policy.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same question: every named async function that itself makes a request an AbortSignal can cancel (global `fetch`, axios and its file-local instances, ky, ofetch) counts, and it is compliant when its parameters or body name a signal or it hands one of its own parameters to the request as options; signatures a framework fixes (JSX event handlers, route and lifecycle exports, request-first handlers, `override`, `'use server'` modules, TanStack `mutationFn`) are exempt unless they take a signal. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether text read out of the document being converted is escaped before it is written into generated markup — a value the document's author chose, interpolated into an attribute the surrounding literal delimits, can close that attribute and open another.

Method: Roslyn semantic model over the whole compilation: a string-typed `Value`/`InnerText`/`InnerXml`/`Text` member declared inside `DocumentFormat.OpenXml` or `System.Xml` is a taint SOURCE, propagated through assignments, returns, arguments, tuple elements and string composition to its transitive closure, then read at interpolated-string holes that sit in a markup position the surrounding literal itself delimits. Escaper/encoder calls and enclosing validator conditions cut the flow. Flow- and container-insensitive by construction. A second arm needs no provenance at all and reports a type that CONTRADICTS ITSELF — the same expression escaped at one delimited markup hole and interpolated raw at another hole in the same markup position of the same type, which the type's own escaping proves is a defect without knowing where the value came from. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the token stream with the same rule: a DOM read of raw document text (`getAttribute`, `textContent`, `innerText`, `nodeValue`) is the source, propagated through local bindings and string composition, and judged at template-literal and concatenation holes in the same two delimited markup positions; escapers and validating conditions cut it, and documentation-site, test, vendored and minified scripts are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

`Object.entries(THEMES).map(([theme,prefix])=>` ${prefix} [data-chart=${id}] { ${colorConfig.map(([key,itemConfig])=>{…` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup. — REDACTED:74

What to do

Each finding names the expression, the attribute it lands in and the line. Confirm the value's origin from the read this analyzer traced, then escape it at the sink or validate it against the shape the attribute accepts before interpolating.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `foreach` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is enumerating invalidates the enumerator it is holding, so the next `MoveNext` throws `InvalidOperationException` and the remaining items are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `REDACTED` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Statically assessed 12 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (22%; ≈24% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 43 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).

Dimension	WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria	Coverage
AC2 · Forms & labels	1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC3 · Page structure	1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2	Partial signal
AC4 · Keyboard semantics	2.1.1, 2.4.3	Partial signal
AC5 · ARIA correctness	4.1.2	Partial signal
AC6 · Visual & motion safety	1.4.3, 2.4.7	Partial — literal CSS only
AC7 · A11y enforcement	enforcement — no page criterion	Enforcement posture (process)

Not statically assessed — these 43 Level A/AA criteria need runtime or manual evaluation (WCAG-EM): 1.1.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.5, 1.4.10, 1.4.11, 1.4.12, 1.4.13, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.3.1, 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 2.4.11, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.1.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.6, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 4.1.3.

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.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	82%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	74%	Adequate — gated by R9	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity	43%	Adequate — gated by M2, M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	39%	Adequate — gated by D13, R4, R5, P7	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	72%	Adequate — gated by D29, D30	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	73%	Adequate — gated by DM4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.
Accessibility	63%	Strong	Solid.
Performance	72%	Strong	Solid.

Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

X10 Duplicated predicate — 2 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 3 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

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.

Not included — 29 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 image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
AXR1 Runtime accessibility — compose up failed (exit 18 — an image could not be pulled) — sqlserver Pulling keycloak Pulling mailpit Pulling mailpit Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden keycloak Error context canceled sqlserver Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the earlier `compose pull` step reported: keycloak Pulling mailpit Pulling sqlserver Pulling mailpit Error Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden sqlserver Error context canceled keycloak Error context canceled Error response from daemon: Get "https://registry-1.docker.io/v2/": Forbidden; the runtime sandbox reaches registries only through the in-fence pull-through mirror, so an image the mirror does not carry cannot be fetched — this is a limit of our sandbox, not of your stack; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .ts, .tsx, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — D27 reads resolved call sites in the languages it reads only — this repository's production source is .ts, .tsx, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 120 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — This is a dotnet-new template — it produces no released artifact to attest. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM are deferred to the application you build from it (add SLSA provenance / cosign signing / an SBOM in your app's release pipeline).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — 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 — IL not measured — the target did not build
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.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `vitest --coverage`, `jest --coverage`, `bun test --coverage --coverage-reporter=lcov`, or `nyc`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

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.

Critical — 58 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×12

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D13 · Secret Scanning · Leaked secret · ×8

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AX3 · Project dependency cycles · Namespace dependency cycle · ×4

Namespace dependency cycle src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Permissions/PermissionRegistry.cs:1 — The namespaces AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions ↔ AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions → AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants (AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.PermissionRegistry → AppointMe.Shared.Authorization.Permissions.DefaultGrants.IDefaultGrantPolicy, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerRehydrationSource.cs:3 — The namespaces AppointMe.Crm.Customers ↔ AppointMe.Crm.Database depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Crm.Customers → AppointMe.Crm.Database (AppointMe.Crm.Customers.CustomerRehydrationSource → AppointMe.Crm.Database.CrmDbContext, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Database/IdentityDbContext.cs:1 — The namespaces AppointMe.Identity.Database ↔ AppointMe.Identity.Users depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Identity.Database → AppointMe.Identity.Users (AppointMe.Identity.Database.IdentityDbContext → AppointMe.Identity.Users.User, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.
Namespace dependency cycle src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/CompanyRehydrationSource.cs:2 — The namespaces AppointMe.Organizations.Companies ↔ AppointMe.Organizations.Database ↔ AppointMe.Organizations.Employees depend on each other. The lightest dependency in the cycle is AppointMe.Organizations.Companies → AppointMe.Organizations.Database (AppointMe.Organizations.Companies.CompanyRehydrationSource → AppointMe.Organizations.Database.OrganizationsDbContext, 1 type pair(s)); cut that one first, e.g. by moving the shared type to a namespace both can use or inverting it behind an interface.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D28 · Secrets (history) · High secret · ×3

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (2 files) · ×3

Import cycle (2 files) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/can.tsx:2 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/can.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/auth/can.tsx (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files)
Import cycle (2 files) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/index.ts:2 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/mode-toggle.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/theme/index.ts
Import cycle (2 files) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx:1 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 3 files)

D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×1

NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:13 — NU1608 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, including builds years from now. It is raised by the build itself — the packaging, restore or SDK step — about the project as a whole, not by the compiler or an analyzer at a line of code, so there is no call site to narrow it to and no per-site directive that could carry a reason: this element is the only place the decision can be recorded. Say WHY here, in a comment on the entry, or fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×1

REDACTED

R9 · Circular Imports · Import cycle (6 files) · ×1

Import cycle (6 files) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/header.tsx:2 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/header.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/router/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/router/router.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/layout.tsx → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/index.ts → src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/header/header.tsx (one verified cycle inside a mutually-dependent group of 9 files)

Serious — 239 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×78

Dead code: CrmDefaultGrantPolicy src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Authorization/CrmDefaultGrantPolicy.cs:7 — NamedType CrmDefaultGrantPolicy — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteCustomerCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/DeleteCustomer/DeleteCustomerCommandHandler.cs:6 — NamedType DeleteCustomerCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteCustomerEndpoint src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/DeleteCustomer/DeleteCustomerEndpoint.cs:4 — NamedType DeleteCustomerEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetCustomerByIdEndpoint src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetCustomerById/GetCustomerByIdEndpoint.cs:4 — NamedType GetCustomerByIdEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetCustomerByIdQueryHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetCustomerById/GetCustomerByIdQueryHandler.cs:5 — NamedType GetCustomerByIdQueryHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetCustomerQueryHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetCustomers/GetCustomerQueryHandler.cs:6 — NamedType GetCustomerQueryHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetCustomersEndpoint src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetCustomers/GetCustomersEndpoint.cs:5 — NamedType GetCustomersEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetNewCustomerStatsEndpoint src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetNewCustomerStats/GetNewCustomerStatsEndpoint.cs:3 — NamedType GetNewCustomerStatsEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: RegisterCustomerCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommandHandler.cs:5 — NamedType RegisterCustomerCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: RegisterCustomerEndpoint src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerEndpoint.cs:6 — NamedType RegisterCustomerEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/TopUpDemoCustomers/TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.cs:5 — NamedType TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: TopUpDemoCustomersJobRegistrar src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/TopUpDemoCustomers/TopUpDemoCustomersJobRegistrar.cs:6 — NamedType TopUpDemoCustomersJobRegistrar — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UpdateCustomerCommandHandler src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerCommandHandler.cs:6 — NamedType UpdateCustomerCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UpdateCustomerEndpoint src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerEndpoint.cs:5 — NamedType UpdateCustomerEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Crm, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: HasRole src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/IPrincipal.cs:8 — Method HasRole — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Shared, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: OrganizationsDefaultGrantPolicy src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Authorization/OrganizationsDefaultGrantPolicy.cs:8 — NamedType OrganizationsDefaultGrantPolicy — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: OnboardingCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Onboarding/OnboardingCommandHandler.cs:5 — NamedType OnboardingCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: OnboardingEndpoint src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Onboarding/OnboardingEndpoint.cs:6 — NamedType OnboardingEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteEmployeeCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/DeleteEmployee/DeleteEmployeeCommandHandler.cs:6 — NamedType DeleteEmployeeCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: DeleteEmployeeEndpoint src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/DeleteEmployee/DeleteEmployeeEndpoint.cs:3 — NamedType DeleteEmployeeEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetTeamEndpoint src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/GetTeam/GetTeamEndpoint.cs:5 — NamedType GetTeamEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: GetTeamQueryHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/GetTeam/GetTeamQueryHandler.cs:10 — NamedType GetTeamQueryHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UpdateEmployeeRolesCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/UpdateEmployeeRoles/UpdateEmployeeRolesCommandHandler.cs:8 — NamedType UpdateEmployeeRolesCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: UpdateEmployeeRolesEndpoint src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/UpdateEmployeeRoles/UpdateEmployeeRolesEndpoint.cs:5 — NamedType UpdateEmployeeRolesEndpoint — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
Dead code: AcceptInvitationCommandHandler src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/AcceptInvitation/AcceptInvitationCommandHandler.cs:8 — NamedType AcceptInvitationCommandHandler — Roslyn's SymbolFinder walked every project the solution loads, including AppointMe.Organizations, and found no reference to it. That walk cannot see three kinds of caller, so check them before removing it: code outside the solution file (a solution is a curated list, not the repository — a sibling test tree with its own .sln is invisible), a call resolved by reflection or dependency injection from the symbol's name, and any project the workspace could not load. This is 'no caller found by this walk', not a verdict that the symbol is unused.
+ 53 more in this group — see findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Medium IaC · ×54

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
+ 29 more in this group — see findings.md.

D3 · God Classes · FunctionTooLong · ×9

FunctionTooLong: schedule-appointment-dialog.ScheduleAppointmentDialog src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:51 — FunctionTooLong — ScheduleAppointmentDialog runs 203 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 103 over it, 2.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: trend-chart.TrendChart src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72 — FunctionTooLong — TrendChart runs 137 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 37 over it, 1.37× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: edit-customer-dialog.EditCustomerDialog src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:44 — FunctionTooLong — EditCustomerDialog runs 132 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 32 over it, 1.32× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: create-customer.CreateCustomer src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:24 — FunctionTooLong — CreateCustomer runs 114 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 14 over it, 1.14× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: team.Team src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/team.tsx:25 — FunctionTooLong — Team runs 108 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 8 over it, 1.08× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: reschedule-appointment-dialog.RescheduleAppointmentDialog src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:36 — FunctionTooLong — RescheduleAppointmentDialog runs 107 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 7 over it, 1.07× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: signup-form.SignupForm src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:22 — FunctionTooLong — SignupForm runs 106 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 6 over it, 1.06× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: appointments.Appointments src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/appointments.tsx:17 — FunctionTooLong — Appointments runs 103 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 3 over it, 1.03× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.
FunctionTooLong: onboarding-form.OnboardingForm src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:55 — FunctionTooLong — OnboardingForm runs 101 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded) in one body. The bar is 100 significant lines; this is 1 over it, 1.01× the bar. This is length, not branching: a long straight-line body scores low on complexity and is still read whole to change any part of it, so the complexity numbers beside this row neither confirm nor excuse it. To reduce it, extract each cohesive step of the body — the runs of statements that work on the same values and would earn the same name — into its own named unit, and have this one call them in order.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model · Anemic entity · ×8

Anemic entity: Customer src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Customer.cs:4 — `Customer` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Company src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Company.cs:7 — `Company` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Employee src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Employee.cs:6 — `Employee` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: EmployeeInvitation src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/EmployeeInvitation.cs:6 — `EmployeeInvitation` is an aggregate/entity with 9 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: User src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/User.cs:6 — `User` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Appointment src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/Appointment.cs:6 — `Appointment` is an aggregate/entity with 8 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: Attendee src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Attendee.cs:4 — `Attendee` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.
Anemic entity: ServiceProvider src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProvider.cs:4 — `ServiceProvider` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×5

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) · ×4

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:24 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:24 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/actions-cell.tsx:84 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/format/timezone.ts:1 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/format/timezone.ts:1 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:34 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/empty.tsx:42 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/empty.tsx:42 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/item.tsx:80 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/hover-card.tsx:7 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/hover-card.tsx:7 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/popover.tsx:7 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

AC2 · Forms & labels · <Select> field component without a label · ×2

<Select> field component without a label src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:166 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id, and nothing it renders carries one either (a name prop is the form-submission key, not a label). The text inside it does not stand in for one: these compound APIs render a trigger with role="combobox" (or role="button"), and those roles take their name from the AUTHOR, not from their content — so the words on screen never reach the accessibility tree as a name. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.
<Select> field component without a label src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/data-table-pagination.tsx:19 — This UI-library field component has no label / aria-label / aria-labelledby / id, and nothing it renders carries one either (a name prop is the form-submission key, not a label). The text inside it does not stand in for one: these compound APIs render a trigger with role="combobox" (or role="button"), and those roles take their name from the AUTHOR, not from their content — so the words on screen never reach the accessibility tree as a name. Name it whichever way this library supports: a label prop, an aria-label, or an id on the rendered control with a <label htmlFor> pointing at it. For a group of controls, name the group itself (aria-label, or a fieldset with a legend) — labelling each item leaves the set unnamed.

AC6 · Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed inline · ×2

Focus outline removed inline src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input.tsx:6 — <input> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2).
Focus outline removed inline src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/textarea.tsx:6 — <textarea> takes keyboard focus, and its outline-none utility removes the focus ring with no focus-state ring, shadow, border or outline utility in its place. Add one (e.g. focus-visible:ring-2).

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs:11 — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs:11-21 | src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRolesUpdatedEventHandler.cs:11-21 — before extracting anything, compare `src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRegisteredEventHandler.cs` and `src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ReconcileServiceProviders/EmployeeRolesUpdatedEventHandler.cs` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/BookingCompanies/Database/BookingCompanyTypeConfiguration.cs:9 — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/BookingCompanies/Database/BookingCompanyTypeConfiguration.cs:9-19 | src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Database/CompanyTypeConfiguration.cs:11-21 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `builder` to `EntityTypeBuilder<BookingCompany>` in one and `EntityTypeBuilder<Company>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

ED5 · Idempotency · Non-idempotent mutation · ×2

Non-idempotent mutation: TopUpDemoCustomers.TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.HandleAsync src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/TopUpDemoCustomers/TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.cs:10 — `TopUpDemoCustomers.TopUpDemoCustomersCommandHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.
Non-idempotent mutation: TopUpDemoAppointments.TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler.HandleAsync src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/TopUpDemoAppointments/TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler.cs:9 — `TopUpDemoAppointments.TopUpDemoAppointmentsCommandHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write.

IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Hollow method · ×2

Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/AnonymousPrincipal.cs:8 — `HasRole` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in.
Hollow method — returns a constant without doing the work src/AppointMe.Shared/Authorization/Principals/AnonymousPrincipal.cs:9 — `HasPermission` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in.

P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience · Outbound HTTP without resilience · ×2

Outbound HTTP without resilience src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/DemoModeExtensions.cs:22 — `services.AddHttpClient<IDemoUserAuthenticator, KeycloakDemoUserAuthenticator>()` registers an outbound HTTP client with no resilience handler, retry policy or timeout of its own in its builder chain. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default).
Outbound HTTP without resilience src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/DemoModeExtensions.cs:25 — `services.AddHttpClient<IDemoUserAuthenticator, EntraExternalIdDemoUserAuthent...` registers an outbound HTTP client with no resilience handler, retry policy or timeout of its own in its builder chain. A slow or failing dependency will hold this service's request, thread or connection — and cascade — until the call gives up on its own (100 s for HttpClient's default).

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx:7 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx:7 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/columns.tsx:6 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:157 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:157 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:129 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 8 locations) · ×2

Duplicated block (11 lines × 8 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:241 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:241 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:75 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:118 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:102 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 8 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:45 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:45 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert.tsx:23 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/card.tsx:36 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dialog.tsx:67 · +4 more site(s) not listed — the 8 copies are spread across 7 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

AC7 · A11y enforcement · Accessibility enforcement below the top rung · ×1

Accessibility enforcement below the top rung — No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 127 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · chart.ChartTooltipContent (cyclomatic 31) · ×1

chart.ChartTooltipContent (cyclomatic 31) REDACTED:95 — chart.ChartTooltipContent has cyclomatic complexity 31 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 5 of the 31 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 160, 119). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · trend-chart.TrendChart (cyclomatic 29) · ×1

trend-chart.TrendChart (cyclomatic 29) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72 — trend-chart.TrendChart has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 5 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · actions-cell.ActionsCell (cyclomatic 18) · ×1

actions-cell.ActionsCell (cyclomatic 18) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/actions-cell.tsx:22 — actions-cell.ActionsCell has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 3 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · trend-chart.TrendChart (cognitive 28) · ×1

trend-chart.TrendChart (cognitive 28) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72 — trend-chart.TrendChart has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: ternaries 13 (19 pts), boolean chains 6, if/else 2, match/switch 1 (nesting depth added 6). Of this number, 20 points are the body's own statements and 8 belong to 5 function items inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · chart.ChartTooltipContent (cognitive 27) · ×1

chart.ChartTooltipContent (cognitive 27) REDACTED:95 — chart.ChartTooltipContent has cognitive complexity 27 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 14, ternaries 6 (9 pts), if/else 4 (nesting depth added 3). Most of this is not in the body itself: 4 of the 27 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 2 function literals inside it that branch (lines 160, 119). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · invite-employee-dialog.InviteEmployeeDialog (cognitive 19) · ×1

invite-employee-dialog.InviteEmployeeDialog (cognitive 19) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:36 — invite-employee-dialog.InviteEmployeeDialog has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (10 pts), boolean chains 5, match/switch 1 (3 pts), error handling 1 (nesting depth added 9). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 19 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 5 function items inside it that branch (onSubmit, a function literal at line 92, a function literal at line 108, …). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · signup-form.SignupForm (cognitive 17) · ×1

signup-form.SignupForm (cognitive 17) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:22 — signup-form.SignupForm has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 3 (8 pts), boolean chains 5, ternaries 3, error handling 1 (nesting depth added 5). Most of this is not in the body itself: 2 of the 17 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to 3 function items inside it that branch (onSubmit, a function literal at line 98, a function literal at line 117). The named helpers are already separate functions; the literals' work cannot be called, reviewed or tested from outside this body. To reduce it, move the named helpers out of the body to the enclosing scope and lift each literal's work into a named function there, so each is measured, reviewed and tested on its own, and reduce whichever one then reads as the largest.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent pagination and filtering strategy across rehydration sources. Customer source supports pagination/filtering, Company source returns all (no pagination), Employee source returns all for a company (no pagination). This suggests a lack of unified contract for bulk data retrieval. · ×1

Inconsistent pagination and filtering strategy across rehydration sources. Customer source supports pagination/filtering, Company source returns all (no pagination), Employee source returns all for a company (no pagination). This suggests a lack of unified contract for bulk data retrieval. — Standardize all rehydration sources to accept a common `PaginationFilter` or `QueryOptions` parameter, or explicitly document why Company/Employee lists are small enough to not require pagination while Customers do. (signatures: ICustomerRehydrationSource.GetByCompanyAsync(Guid companyId, PaginationFilter pagination, CancellationToken cancellationToken) | ICompanyRehydrationSource.GetAll(CancellationToken cancellationToken) | IEmployeeRehydrationSource.GetAllByCompany(CompanyId companyId, CancellationToken cancellationToken))

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D3 · God Classes · FileTooLong · ×1

FileTooLong: ui/sidebar.tsx src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx — FileTooLong — 518 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded). The bar is 500 significant lines; this is 18 over it, 1.04× the bar. To reduce it, split the file along the responsibilities already in it: move each cohesive group of declarations into its own sibling file in the same module or package, so no one file has to be read whole to change one of them.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–20 lines × 2) src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/EntraExternalId/EntraExternalIdClaimsTransformer.cs:9 — src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/EntraExternalId/EntraExternalIdClaimsTransformer.cs:9-28 | src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/Keycloak/KeycloakClaimsTransformer.cs:9-22 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (18 lines × 3) src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:15 — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:15-32 | src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/Database/ServiceProviderTypeConfiguration.cs:15-32 | src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Database/CustomerTypeConfiguration.cs:15-32 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 3 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 3 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:15` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `builder` to `EntityTypeBuilder<Attendee>` in one and `EntityTypeBuilder<ServiceProvider>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/Database/UserTypeConfiguration.cs:31 — src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/Database/UserTypeConfiguration.cs:31-44 | src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:32-45 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/Database/UserTypeConfiguration.cs:31` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it and carries on into the declaration that follows — the window is the tail of one member plus the head of the next, so no call can be substituted for those exact lines, and the smallest declaration that contains all of them is the type they sit in. The repeated unit is the member each site sits in: where those members' bodies are the same, move one whole member to the shared location and have the others delegate to it; where the copies are a run of near-identical overloads or wrappers that differ only in their signatures, the repetition IS the run — a one-line delegation has no helper inside it to lift — so generate the run from the set it enumerates, or accept it and keep each member's own documentation with it. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `builder` to `EntityTypeBuilder<User>` in one and `EntityTypeBuilder<Employee>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 5) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 5) src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:21 — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:21-35 | src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/Database/ServiceProviderTypeConfiguration.cs:21-35 | src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Database/CustomerTypeConfiguration.cs:21-35 | src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/Database/UserTypeConfiguration.cs:27-41 | src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:28-42 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere all 5 call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made 5 times. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Database/AttendeeTypeConfiguration.cs:21` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `builder` to `EntityTypeBuilder<Attendee>` in one and `EntityTypeBuilder<ServiceProvider>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:17 — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:17-28 | src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/Database/EmployeeInvitationTypeConfiguration.cs:17-28 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:17` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `builder` to `EntityTypeBuilder<Employee>` in one and `EntityTypeBuilder<EmployeeInvitation>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerRegisteredEventHandler.cs:10 — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerRegisteredEventHandler.cs:10-22 | src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/ReconcileAttendees/CustomerUpdatedEventHandler.cs:10-21 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:43 — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:43-49 | src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/Database/EmployeeInvitationTypeConfiguration.cs:31-37 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/EmployeeTypeConfiguration.cs:43` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `builder` to `EntityTypeBuilder<Employee>` in one and `EntityTypeBuilder<EmployeeInvitation>` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Dashboard/GetDashboardStats/GetDashboardStatsRequest.cs:5 — src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Dashboard/GetDashboardStats/GetDashboardStatsRequest.cs:5-10 | src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/GetNewCustomerStats/GetNewCustomerStatsRequest.cs:5-10 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.

D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1

Coverage not measured — test suite did not build — Coverage NOT MEASURED: this repository did not build in our analyzer environment (a C#/MSBuild compiler error), so no coverage could be collected. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. We did not read WHERE the failing diagnostic is, so this does not claim the fault is in your test code — a repository written for an older SDK band can compile for you and not for us. Run `dotnet build` on this commit; if it succeeds, the gap is ours. Committing the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces also lets us measure real coverage without building anything.

DM10 · One transaction, one aggregate · One operation mutates 2 aggregates · ×1

One operation mutates 2 aggregates: OnboardingCommandHandler.HandleAsync src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Onboarding/OnboardingCommandHandler.cs:7 — `OnboardingCommandHandler.HandleAsync` saves `Company`, `Employee` in a single operation. Each is its own consistency boundary, so committing them together makes the second's invariants depend on the first's transaction, holds a lock across both for the whole operation, and means the pair can no longer be separated — into different services, or different databases. Mutate one aggregate here and let the others follow from a domain event.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplication concentrated across 6 sibling directories (11 clone groups) · ×1

Duplication concentrated across 6 sibling directories (11 clone groups) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:95 — 11 duplicated blocks under src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories appointments, auth, customers, invitations, onboarding, team — 6 of them are reported below, and 5 are counted here but not reported individually: those copies match on shape but no longer clear R10's bar for an individually reported row — either they kept neither their own names nor their values, or what was copied is too small to stand on its own (it reports near-exact duplication only, and only of substantial extent). What this row states is the concentration, which the detector measured over all 11 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 11 local ones: the siblings replicate behaviour none of them owns, which is the shape of a missing shared module — a common library every sibling imports — rather than 11 separate extractions. Check first whether the siblings are deliberately standalone deliverables (scaffold templates, demo apps that must stay copy-pasteable); where they are, the duplication is the design and the per-block rows are the ones to act on.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (106 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (106 matched lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:47 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:47 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:75 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 708 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (102 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (102 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:81 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:81 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:39 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (79 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (79 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:104 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:104 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/menubar.tsx:123 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (51 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (51 matched lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:35 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:35 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:36 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 317 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (47 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:85 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:117 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (34 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (34 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:42 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:42 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dialog.tsx:64 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (33 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (33 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:25 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:25 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:153 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/menubar.tsx:172 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (29 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (29 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/carousel.tsx:161 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/carousel.tsx:161 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/carousel.tsx:191 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (24 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (24 matched lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:95 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:95 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/team.tsx:122 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 125 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (23 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:92 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:92 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:131 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:72 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:72 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sheet.tsx:76 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (17 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (17 lines × 4 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert.tsx:29 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert.tsx:29 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:110 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input-group.tsx:117 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/table.tsx:47 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 11 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 11 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:5 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:168 · +7 more site(s) not listed — the 11 copies are spread across 11 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/button-group.tsx:23 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/button-group.tsx:23 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:75 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:111 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:111 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:98 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/signup/signup-form.tsx:117 — the 3 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:214 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:214 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/create-customer.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:117 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block with local edits (12 matched lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:56 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/actions-cell.tsx:56 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/customers.tsx:34 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 53 tokens are still identical, in the same order in both files, with only local edits between them. The copies have already begun to drift, which is this row's finding: an edit made to one and not the other changes behaviour silently. Diff the two spans first to learn what genuinely differs, then extract the shared core into one module both sites use, passing the differences in as parameters — or, if one copy exists only because the other could not be imported from its context, make one of them the single source the other is generated or re-exported from. If one copy is no longer reachable, delete it rather than letting it shadow the live one.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:73 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/field.tsx:73 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/input-group.tsx:55 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:150 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dropdown-menu.tsx:150 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/menubar.tsx:169 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/resizable.tsx:10 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/select.tsx:117 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/select.tsx:117 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/select.tsx:129 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:76 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/edit-customer-dialog.tsx:76 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/edit-employee-roles-dialog.tsx:64 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:89 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:103 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/invite-employee-dialog.tsx:103 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/onboarding/onboarding-form.tsx:106 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 13 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 13 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/accordion.tsx:10 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/accordion.tsx:10 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:67 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:5 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:91 · +9 more site(s) not listed — the 13 copies are spread across 12 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 14 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 14 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:51 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:51 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:108 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:178 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/dialog.tsx:73 · +10 more site(s) not listed — the 14 copies are spread across 11 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/auth/signup/signup.tsx:10 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/auth/signup/signup.tsx:10 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/invitations/invitations.tsx:59 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/onboarding/onboarding.tsx:8 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. There is one copy in each of 3 separate files rather than several in one place, so check first whether these are sibling modules that each declare their own version of one shape — one per entity, per provider, per language. Where they are, no single extracted module collapses them: each module still has to be written, and what recurs is the TEMPLATE. The moves that do collapse a template are to generate these modules from the set they enumerate, or to replace the repeated construction with one factory each site calls with its own values — and where the set is the point, each module pinning one distinct thing, the repetition IS the enumeration and there is nothing to delete.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 3 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:63 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/reschedule-appointment/reschedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:63 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/appointments/schedule-appointment/schedule-appointment-dialog.tsx:96 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/modal-dialog/confirm-dialog.tsx:30 — the 3 copies are spread across 3 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/sidebar/nav-user.tsx:35 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/sidebar/nav-user.tsx:35 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/layouts/sidebar/nav-user.tsx:53 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 12 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 12 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/alert-dialog.tsx:61 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:9 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/command.tsx:85 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/context-menu.tsx:168 · +8 more site(s) not listed — the 12 copies are spread across 12 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 4 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:1 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/avatar.tsx:1 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/label.tsx:3 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/resizable.tsx:2 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/switch.tsx:3 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the SHAPE of this repetition could not be determined. It is not a run of declarations, a listing, a declaration header, a type body or a slice through a construct — and it was not measured as a run of executable statements either, so this row cannot tell you whether a function can stand where these lines are. Read the two spans before acting, because the move is opposite in the two cases. Where they are statements, the ordinary answer holds: give the shared part one home and call it from each site. Where they turn out to be declarations, a literal's entries, or the cases of an enumeration, there is no call site to call anything from, and collapsing them would delete what each copy pins — a shared base type, a generated set, or one exported constant each site refers to is the move instead, and sometimes the honest answer is that there is nothing to extract at all. Reported because the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is true whichever of those they are.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 7 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (8 lines × 7 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/breadcrumb.tsx:18 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/breadcrumb.tsx:18 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/card.tsx:25 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/card.tsx:43 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:67 · +3 more site(s) not listed — the 7 copies are spread across 6 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R10 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4 locations) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 4 locations) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:73 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/drawer.tsx:73 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/radio-group.tsx:9 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sheet.tsx:77 · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/tabs.tsx:8 — the 4 copies are spread across 4 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function TrendChart (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 20) · ×1

Complex function TrendChart (cyclomatic 22, cognitive 20) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/dashboard/trend-chart.tsx:72 — TrendChart has cyclomatic complexity 22 and cognitive complexity 20; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 12) · ×1

Complex function (anonymous) (cyclomatic 17, cognitive 12) REDACTED:160 — (anonymous) has cyclomatic complexity 17 and cognitive complexity 12; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function ActionsCell (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) · ×1

Complex function ActionsCell (cyclomatic 15, cognitive 14) src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/actions-cell.tsx:22 — ActionsCell has cyclomatic complexity 15 and cognitive complexity 14; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity · Complex function getPayloadConfigFromPayload (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) · ×1

Complex function getPayloadConfigFromPayload (cyclomatic 12, cognitive 11) REDACTED:289 — getPayloadConfigFromPayload has cyclomatic complexity 12 and cognitive complexity 11; this row is raised above a cyclomatic bar of 10. The two numbers answer different questions and the gap between them is what decides whether to act: cyclomatic counts the independent arms through the body, cognitive counts what it costs to hold them in your head, so nesting and mixed boolean chains raise it while a flat run of independent arms does not. Cognitive sits below cyclomatic here, so much of the count is breadth — arms side by side rather than stacked — and splitting per arm would leave a function per arm; group the work between the checks into named steps instead. Measured by this repository's own parse of the file, so a body assembled at runtime, or generated, is counted as written rather than as it executes.

R3 · Large Files · src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx · ×1

src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx: 627 lines of code src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx:1 — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/components/ui/sidebar.tsx has 627 significant lines (blank lines excluded), over the 400-line bar, and contains logic — a file this long is usually several responsibilities in one module.

R4 · Test Coverage · Test Coverage · ×1

Test Coverage — 0% of 157 production file(s) reachable from 0 test file(s) via the import graph — 'production' here is the RESIDUE: every source file left once tests, tooling, generated output, config, declarations and declaration-only modules, fixture corpora, type fixtures, behaviour-free data modules, re-export barrels, registration/constant data modules and service workers are set aside, so the percentage is taken over a smaller denominator than the workspace's file count

R5 · Dependency Freshness · Dependency Freshness · ×1

Dependency Freshness — 65 outdated package(s); JS/npm CVEs scored in D30

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency '@tanstack/pacer' · ×1

Unused dependency '@tanstack/pacer' — Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'baseline-browser-mapping' · ×1

Unused dependency 'baseline-browser-mapping' — Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

R8 · Dependency Hygiene · Unused dependency 'openapi-types' · ×1

Unused dependency 'openapi-types' — Declared in REDACTED but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — no static import reaches it. Usually that is dead weight and attack surface, but two shapes are indistinguishable from source and are NOT dead: an optional or native peer that another dependency loads dynamically at runtime, and a package a build, docs or test step installs and invokes separately. Confirm which of the three this is before removing it.

X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped · Untrusted text written into markup unescaped · ×1

Untrusted text written into markup unescaped REDACTED:74 — `Object.entries(THEMES).map(([theme,prefix])=>` ${prefix} [data-chart=${id}] { ${colorConfig.map(([key,itemConfig])=>{…` is text this program did not author, and it is written into the text of an element through `dangerouslySetInnerHTML` with nothing encoding it for that place. Whoever controls the value controls the markup: it can close the element or attribute it sits in and open a script of its own. Encode it for HTML at this site, render it through the framework's escaping output, or sanitise it if it must stay markup.

Minor — 31 finding(s)

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×10

README/code drift README.md:27 — README.md changes into `Contoso.Booking/src/Contoso.Booking.Aspire`, but no such folder exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md:32 — docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names `api/v1`, but no file or folder `api/v1` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md:225 — docs/CODE_REVIEW_REPORT.md names TypeScript 5, but the manifest declares `typescript` ^6.0.3. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift infra/README.md:137 — infra/README.md documents the environment variable `PRINCIPAL_ID`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md:54 — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-devtest-sqldurable-transport-design.md names `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep`, but no file or folder `infra/modules/service-bus.bicep` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md:27 — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md names `.gitlab-ci.yml`, but no file or folder `.gitlab-ci.yml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-free-tier-cloudflare-worker-design.md:35 — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-free-tier-cloudflare-worker-design.md names `wrangler.toml`, but no file or folder `wrangler.toml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-github-actions-cicd-design.md:9 — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-github-actions-cicd-design.md names `.gitlab-ci.yml`, but no file or folder `.gitlab-ci.yml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-10-infra-readme-github-first-design.md:21 — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-10-infra-readme-github-first-design.md documents the environment variable `HANGFIRE_ADMINS`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-22-dotnet-new-template-package-design.md:242 — docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-22-dotnet-new-template-package-design.md names `appointme.schemas.ts`, but no file or folder `appointme.schemas.ts` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every REDACTED, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

DM5 · Encapsulated state · Mutable entity · ×7

Mutable entity: Customer src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Customer.cs:4 — `Customer` exposes publicly writable state (Name, DateOfBirth, Gender, Email, IsDeleted).
Mutable entity: Company src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Companies/Company.cs:7 — `Company` exposes publicly writable state (PrimaryOwnerEmployeeId).
Mutable entity: Employee src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Employee.cs:6 — `Employee` exposes publicly writable state (Roles, IsDeleted).
Mutable entity: EmployeeInvitation src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/EmployeeInvitation.cs:6 — `EmployeeInvitation` exposes publicly writable state (Status, AcceptedAt).
Mutable entity: Appointment src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/Appointment.cs:6 — `Appointment` exposes publicly writable state (ProviderId, Period, Status).
Mutable entity: Attendee src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Attendee.cs:4 — `Attendee` exposes publicly writable state (Name, DateOfBirth, Email, IsDeleted).
Mutable entity: ServiceProvider src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProvider.cs:4 — `ServiceProvider` exposes publicly writable state (Name, IsDeleted).

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×2

Duplicated predicate src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/GetPendingInvitations/GetPendingInvitationsQueryHandler.cs:22 — `invitation.Email == user.Email && invitation.Status == InvitationStatus.Pending` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/GetPendingInvitations/GetPendingInvitationsQueryHandler.cs, src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Me/GetCurrentUserQueryHandler.cs. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx:12 — `table.getIsAllPageRowsSelected() || (table.getIsSomePageRowsSelected() && 'indeterminate')` appears character-identically in 2 files — src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/customers/columns.tsx, src/AppointMe.Frontend/src/app/team/columns.tsx. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×1

Documentation: no project overview docs/superpowers/specs/2026-08-08-footer-build-version-design.md — The design document does not state what the footer build version project is for and how it differs from the existing GitLab pipeline. State the goal (show deployed SHA in frontend footer with no release ceremony) and why it replaces the GitLab option.

D26 · Project Cohesion · Projects may be oversized for their cohesion · ×1

Projects may be oversized for their cohesion — 2 of 18 project(s) overshoot their size bounds, lowering Project Cohesion to 7.8/10. The most over is `AppointMe.Booking` (2096 LoC, 123 public types across 35 namespaces). Review these for cohesion — split a project that spans unrelated responsibilities.

D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1

REDACTED

D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1

REDACTED

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids · Primitive id on a domain type · ×1

Primitive id on a domain type: UserRegisteredEvent.UserId src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/RegisterUser/UserRegisteredEvent.cs:5 — `UserRegisteredEvent.UserId` is a raw `Guid` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `Guid`, in whatever form your language spells that.

DM9 · Scattered domain decisions · Rule about [Email, Status] decided in 2 places · ×1

Rule about [Email, Status] decided in 2 places — AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations.EmployeeInvitation's [Email, Status] are judged in AppointMe.Organizations.Invitations.GetPendingInvitations.GetPendingInvitationsQueryHandler, AppointMe.Organizations.Me.GetCurrentUserQueryHandler — the same decision, restated. Every copy is a chance to drift, and copies drift silently because each one looks correct on its own. Move the judgement onto the type that owns the members and let the call sites ask it.

ED3 · Event naming · Event not named in past tense · ×1

Event not named in past tense: EmployeeInvitationResent src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Invitations/Events/EmployeeInvitationResent.cs:5 — `EmployeeInvitationResent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear.

M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1

No ADRs — No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 27/27 types (100%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.

P2 · Observability · Logging is not universal · ×1

Logging is not universal — Only 5/7 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 7, 2 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

PF1 · Benchmark discipline · No performance benchmarks · ×1

No performance benchmarks — No benchmark suite was found by the two searches this check runs. FIRST, a BenchmarkDotNet package reference in any project file — every project the workspace loaded, plus a walk of project files on disk that never loaded, because a benchmark suite is exactly the project a partial load drops. SECOND, a script harness: a file whose name contains `benchmark` and ends `.py`, `.sh`, `.ps1`, `.bash`, `.rb`, `.js` or `.mjs`, credited ONLY when this repository's CI text also mentions benchmarks — a harness no pipeline runs is read as a fixture, deliberately. Neither search can see a benchmark suite in another ecosystem's idiom (a Go `testing.B` file, a JMH or criterion project, a pytest-benchmark run), so this is 'no benchmark found by those two searches', not a verdict that the repository has none. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

S1 · Web-Security Posture · Security headers incomplete · ×1

Security headers incomplete src/AppointMe.Api/SecurityHeaders/SecurityHeadersMiddleware.cs:27 — Set: Referrer-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options. Missing: Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security — the four headers that carry the points of this card's security-headers term (Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options), 0.5 each. (−1.0 on this card.)

Minor — 14 finding(s)

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×11

XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Aspire REDACTED — AppointMe.Aspire: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Crm src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/AppointMe.Crm.csproj — AppointMe.Crm: 2 % XML-doc coverage (3/155).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Crm.Contracts src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts.csproj — AppointMe.Crm.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Shared src/AppointMe.Shared/AppointMe.Shared.csproj — AppointMe.Shared: 1 % XML-doc coverage (3/222).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Api REDACTED — AppointMe.Api: 3 % XML-doc coverage (4/119).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Organizations src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.csproj — AppointMe.Organizations: 1 % XML-doc coverage (4/299).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts.csproj — AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/15).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Identity src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/AppointMe.Identity.csproj — AppointMe.Identity: 3 % XML-doc coverage (2/63).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Identity.Contracts src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity.Contracts/AppointMe.Identity.Contracts.csproj — AppointMe.Identity.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/7).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Booking src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/AppointMe.Booking.csproj — AppointMe.Booking: 2 % XML-doc coverage (6/299).
XML-doc coverage: AppointMe.Booking.Contracts src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking.Contracts/AppointMe.Booking.Contracts.csproj — AppointMe.Booking.Contracts: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/5).

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Identity · ×1

Identity: 2 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Identity, 2 contract type(s) (AuthenticatedUser, IdentityProviderUserId) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (Email, IdentityProviderUserId); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Organizations · ×1

Organizations: 4 contract type(s) expose producer-owned ids/enums — In Organizations, 4 contract type(s) (EmployeeRegistered, EmployeeRolesUpdated, EmployeeSnapshot, IEmployeeRehydrationSource) expose strong-typed ids/value objects (CompanyId, Role); a serialized contract could expose the underlying primitive instead. Advisory — a deliberate strong-ID style is fine.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×1

Off the main sequence: AppointMe.Shared src/AppointMe.Shared/AppointMe.Shared.csproj:1 — AppointMe.Shared: abstractness 0.18, instability 0.00, distance 0.82 — the shape a shared-kernel / building-block library has BY DESIGN — concrete and widely depended-on is what makes it useful, and this dimension does not penalise it (the distance is reported for completeness, not as a defect). Worth a look only if it has grown past one coherent kernel into an everything-bucket.

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.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-7797a6f782d149b9862cbad0b1399192/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	3	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-7797a6f782d149b9862cbad0b1399192/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	3	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	27	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list AppointMe.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	17	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy config --format json --quiet .	56	artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 120 file(s) — `src/AppointMe.Api/Antiforgery/AntiforgeryMiddleware.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/CurrentIdentityResolver.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/EntraExternalIdDemoUserAuthenticator.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/DemoLogin/KeycloakDemoUserAuthenticator.cs`, `src/AppointMe.Api/Authentication/HttpIdentityFactory.cs`, … (+115 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — This is a dotnet-new template — it produces no released artifact to attest. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM are deferred to the application you build from it (add SLSA provenance / cosign signing / an SBOM in your app's release pipeline).	0	—
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy	disclosure	—	disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	trivy	—	trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs /bin/ --skip-dirs /obj/ . --skip-db-update	0	artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a160a9-f6c6-7890-96f0-ed4063a7b1ff · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 78 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by NAME, from the C# syntax tree, with a deliberately specific identifier classifier — the same one the C1–C5 compliance cards use to decide whether personal data is present, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip. Two caveats stated rather than glossed: those cards additionally require corroboration (a persistence/account signal, or two distinct PII categories) that this inventory deliberately does not, so it lists more than they gate on; and D32 Data Compliance shares nothing with it — that dimension is a separate semgrep ruleset for personal data leaking into logs, URLs and browser storage, and a clean D32 result says nothing about this list. Informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 40 field(s)

PersonName.FirstName src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Common/PersonName.cs:5
PersonName.LastName src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Common/PersonName.cs:5
FullName src/AppointMe.Shared/Domain/Common/PersonName.cs:15
AppointmentDto.ProviderFirstName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/AppointmentDto.cs:10
AppointmentDto.ProviderLastName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/AppointmentDto.cs:11
AppointmentDto.AttendeeFirstName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/AppointmentDto.cs:15
AppointmentDto.AttendeeLastName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Appointments/AppointmentDto.cs:16
ServiceProviderDto.FirstName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProviderDto.cs:6
ServiceProviderDto.LastName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProviderDto.cs:7
ServiceProviderDto.FullName src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/ServiceProviders/ServiceProviderDto.cs:8
CustomerSnapshot.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/CustomerSnapshot.cs:6
CustomerSnapshot.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/CustomerSnapshot.cs:7
CustomerRegisteredEvent.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerRegisteredEvent.cs:8
CustomerRegisteredEvent.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerRegisteredEvent.cs:9
CustomerUpdatedEvent.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerUpdatedEvent.cs:8
CustomerUpdatedEvent.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerUpdatedEvent.cs:9
CustomerDto.FullName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:6
CustomerDto.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:7
CustomerDto.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:8
CustomerRecord.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Database/CustomerRecord.cs:6
CustomerRecord.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Database/CustomerRecord.cs:7
RegisterCustomerCommand.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommand.cs:5
RegisterCustomerCommand.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommand.cs:6
RegisterCustomerRequest.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerRequest.cs:5
RegisterCustomerRequest.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerRequest.cs:6
UpdateCustomerCommand.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerCommand.cs:6
UpdateCustomerCommand.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerCommand.cs:7
UpdateCustomerRequest.FirstName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerRequest.cs:5
UpdateCustomerRequest.LastName src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerRequest.cs:6
EmployeeRegistered.FirstName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/Events/EmployeeRegistered.cs:9
EmployeeRegistered.LastName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/Events/EmployeeRegistered.cs:10
EmployeeRolesUpdated.FirstName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/Events/EmployeeRolesUpdated.cs:9
EmployeeRolesUpdated.LastName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/Events/EmployeeRolesUpdated.cs:10
EmployeeSnapshot.FirstName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/IEmployeeRehydrationSource.cs:9
EmployeeSnapshot.LastName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Employees/IEmployeeRehydrationSource.cs:10
TeamMemberRecord.FirstName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/TeamMemberRecord.cs:8
TeamMemberRecord.LastName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/TeamMemberRecord.cs:9
TeamMemberDto.FullName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/TeamMemberDto.cs:6
TeamMemberDto.FirstName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/TeamMemberDto.cs:7
TeamMemberDto.LastName src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/TeamMemberDto.cs:8

Email — 27 field(s)

SuperAdminRegistry._emails src/AppointMe.Shared/Authentication/SuperAdminRegistry.cs:11
UserIdentity.Email src/AppointMe.Shared/Authentication/UserIdentity.cs:6
DemoUserOptions.Email src/AppointMe.Shared/Configuration/DemoOptions.cs:12
Attendee.Email src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Attendee.cs:10
CustomerSnapshot.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/CustomerSnapshot.cs:9
CustomerRegisteredEvent.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerRegisteredEvent.cs:11
CustomerUpdatedEvent.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerUpdatedEvent.cs:11
Customer.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Customer.cs:11
CustomerDto.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:12
CustomerRecord.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Database/CustomerRecord.cs:10
RegisterCustomerCommand.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommand.cs:9
RegisterCustomerRequest.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerRequest.cs:9
UpdateCustomerCommand.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerCommand.cs:10
UpdateCustomerRequest.Email src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerRequest.cs:9
AuthenticatedUser.Email src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity.Contracts/Identity/AuthenticatedUser.cs:9
SignupCommand.Email src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Signup/SignupCommand.cs:6
SignupRequest.Email src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Signup/SignupRequest.cs:6
User.Email src/Identity/AppointMe.Identity/Users/User.cs:11
EmployeeInvitationResent.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Invitations/Events/EmployeeInvitationResent.cs:5
EmployeeInvited.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations.Contracts/Invitations/Events/EmployeeInvited.cs:5
TeamMemberRecord.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Database/TeamMemberRecord.cs:10
Employee.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/Employee.cs:11
TeamMemberDto.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Employees/TeamMemberDto.cs:10
EmployeeInvitation.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/EmployeeInvitation.cs:10
InviteEmployeeCommand.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/InviteEmployee/InviteEmployeeCommand.cs:5
InviteEmployeeRequest.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Invitations/InviteEmployee/InviteEmployeeRequest.cs:5
GetCurrentUserResponse.Email src/Organizations/AppointMe.Organizations/Me/GetCurrentUserResponse.cs:9

Date of birth — 11 field(s)

Attendee.DateOfBirth src/Booking/AppointMe.Booking/Attendees/Attendee.cs:9
CustomerSnapshot.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/CustomerSnapshot.cs:8
CustomerRegisteredEvent.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerRegisteredEvent.cs:10
CustomerUpdatedEvent.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm.Contracts/Customers/Events/CustomerUpdatedEvent.cs:10
Customer.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Customer.cs:9
CustomerDto.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/CustomerDto.cs:10
CustomerRecord.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/Database/CustomerRecord.cs:8
RegisterCustomerCommand.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerCommand.cs:7
RegisterCustomerRequest.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/RegisterCustomer/RegisterCustomerRequest.cs:7
UpdateCustomerCommand.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerCommand.cs:8
UpdateCustomerRequest.DateOfBirth src/CRM/AppointMe.Crm/Customers/UpdateCustomer/UpdateCustomerRequest.cs:7

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 74% · Adequate · gated by R9 ·

At a glance — Maturity · 43% · Adequate · gated by M2, M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 39% · Adequate · gated by D13, R4, R5, P7 ·

At a glance — Security · 72% · Adequate · gated by D29, D30 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 73% · Adequate · gated by DM4 ·

At a glance — Event-Driven · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Accessibility · 63% · Strong ·

At a glance — Performance · 72% · Strong ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Downloadable artifacts