Executive summary
bush1D3v/tsbank_api scores 51 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its six lenses score higher still: Architecture at 86, Security and Compliance at 79, Code Health at 94, and Performance at 100.
The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 29 and is rated Weak. The project has no CI/CD gates and no security or performance tooling, so both dimensions score 0 out of 10, and until those dimensions reach 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. Recording design decisions, adding a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push or pull request, and running a security tool like CodeQL or semgrep locally are therefore the first actions, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 51 to about 68.
One finding is critical: a high-risk issue in Infrastructure as Code and Container Security, which should be checked and remediated immediately.
Watchdog couldn't measure Test Reliability because no tests were discovered, and it left out Dependency Hygiene, License Compliance, Internal API Consistency, Data Protection, Audit Trail, Data Retention, and Data-Subject Rights because the repository's lockfile format or data storage patterns did not allow assessment. The product code is 2,612 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €4,500, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 29 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 51 to about 68.
New since the last survey: 4 findings
- Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
- Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
- Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
- Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €4,500 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €1,500 to €7,400, for 25 to 78 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, 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 51. 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: 2,612 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 src.controllers.transaction | 2 src.controllers.user | 3 src.error | 4 src.error.HttpStatusError | 5 src.middlewares.auth | 6 src.middlewares.transaction | 7 src.middlewares.user | 8 src.models.transaction.CardPayParams | 9 src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams | 10 src.models.transaction.CardType | 11 src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams | 12 src.models.transaction.DepositParams | 13 src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams | 14 src.models.transaction.NewPixParams | 15 src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams | 16 src.models.transaction.PixParams | 17 src.models.transaction.TransactionParams | 18 src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams | 19 src.models.user.CardParams | 20 src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams | 21 src.models.user.InsertCardParams | 22 src.models.user.LoginUserParams | 23 src.models.user.RefreshCardParams | 24 src.models.user.RefreshUserParams | 25 src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams | 26 src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams | 27 src.models.user.UpdateUserParams | 28 src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams | 29 src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams | 30 src.models.user.UserParams | 31 src.models.user.ValidateCardParams | 32 tests.functions.user.unauthUser | 33 src.providers.user | 34 src.repositories.transaction | 35 src.repositories.user | 36 src.services.transaction | 37 src.services.user | 38 src.utils | 39 tests.functions.transaction | 40 tests.functions.user |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 src.controllers.transaction | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 src.controllers.user | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 src.error | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 src.error.HttpStatusError | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 src.middlewares.auth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 src.middlewares.transaction | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 src.middlewares.user | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 src.models.transaction.CardPayParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 src.models.transaction.CardType | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 src.models.transaction.DepositParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 src.models.transaction.NewPixParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 src.models.transaction.PixParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 src.models.transaction.TransactionParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 src.models.user.CardParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 src.models.user.InsertCardParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 src.models.user.LoginUserParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 src.models.user.RefreshCardParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 src.models.user.RefreshUserParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 src.models.user.UpdateUserParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 src.models.user.UserParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 src.models.user.ValidateCardParams | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 tests.functions.user.unauthUser | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 src.providers.user | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 src.repositories.transaction | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 src.repositories.user | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 src.services.transaction | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 src.services.user | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 src.utils | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 tests.functions.transaction | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 tests.functions.user | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
33→31 src.providers.user uses src.models.user.ValidateCardParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.providers.user uses a type in src.models.user.ValidateCardParams.
- The types involved
src.providers.user.validateCard→src.models.user.ValidateCardParams.ValidateCardParams
- Direction
- src.providers.user uses src.models.user.ValidateCardParams, so a change to src.models.user.ValidateCardParams can break src.providers.user, while a change to src.providers.user can't break src.models.user.ValidateCardParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.providers.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
34→14 src.repositories.transaction uses src.models.transaction.NewPixParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.NewPixParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.transaction.createNewPix→src.models.transaction.NewPixParams.NewPixParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.transaction uses src.models.transaction.NewPixParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.NewPixParams can break src.repositories.transaction, while a change to src.repositories.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.NewPixParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
34→17 src.repositories.transaction uses src.models.transaction.TransactionParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.TransactionParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.transaction.createNewTransaction→src.models.transaction.TransactionParams.TransactionParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.transaction uses src.models.transaction.TransactionParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.TransactionParams can break src.repositories.transaction, while a change to src.repositories.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.TransactionParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→13 src.repositories.user uses src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.user uses a type in src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.user.getCardPerUserId→src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams.GetCardPerUserIdParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.user uses src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams can break src.repositories.user, while a change to src.repositories.user can't break src.models.transaction.GetCardPerUserIdParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→21 src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.InsertCardParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.user uses a type in src.models.user.InsertCardParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.user.createCard→src.models.user.InsertCardParams.InsertCardParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.InsertCardParams, so a change to src.models.user.InsertCardParams can break src.repositories.user, while a change to src.repositories.user can't break src.models.user.InsertCardParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→23 src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.RefreshCardParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.user uses a type in src.models.user.RefreshCardParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.user.refreshCardPassword→src.models.user.RefreshCardParams.RefreshCardParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.RefreshCardParams, so a change to src.models.user.RefreshCardParams can break src.repositories.user, while a change to src.repositories.user can't break src.models.user.RefreshCardParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→24 src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.RefreshUserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.user uses a type in src.models.user.RefreshUserParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.user.refreshUser→src.models.user.RefreshUserParams.RefreshUserParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.RefreshUserParams, so a change to src.models.user.RefreshUserParams can break src.repositories.user, while a change to src.repositories.user can't break src.models.user.RefreshUserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→30 src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.UserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.repositories.user uses a type in src.models.user.UserParams.
- The types involved
src.repositories.user.createNewUser→src.models.user.UserParams.UserParams
- Direction
- src.repositories.user uses src.models.user.UserParams, so a change to src.models.user.UserParams can break src.repositories.user, while a change to src.repositories.user can't break src.models.user.UserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.repositories.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→9 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.insertCardTransactionAndReturn→src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams.CardTransactionParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.CardTransactionParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→11 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.deleteTransactionAndConfirm→src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams.DeleteTransactionParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.DeleteTransactionParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→12 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.DepositParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.DepositParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.insertDepositAndReturn→src.models.transaction.DepositParams.DepositParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.DepositParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.DepositParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.DepositParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→15 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.makeCardPayAndReturn→src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams.OutputTransactionParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.OutputTransactionParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→16 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.PixParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.PixParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.insertPixAndReturn→src.models.transaction.PixParams.PixParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.PixParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.PixParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.PixParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→17 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.TransactionParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.TransactionParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.insertTransactionAndReturn→src.models.transaction.TransactionParams.TransactionParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.TransactionParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.TransactionParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.TransactionParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→18 src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams.
- The types involved
src.services.transaction.makeWithdrawAndReturn→src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams.WithdrawParams
- Direction
- src.services.transaction uses src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams can break src.services.transaction, while a change to src.services.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→19 src.services.user uses src.models.user.CardParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.CardParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.insertCardAndReturn→src.models.user.CardParams.CardParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.CardParams, so a change to src.models.user.CardParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.CardParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→22 src.services.user uses src.models.user.LoginUserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.LoginUserParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.loginUserAndReturn→src.models.user.LoginUserParams.LoginUserParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.LoginUserParams, so a change to src.models.user.LoginUserParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.LoginUserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→25 src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.updateCardPasswordAndConfirm→src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams.UpdateCardPasswordParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams, so a change to src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.UpdateCardPasswordParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→26 src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.updateEmailAndReturn→src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams.UpdateUserEmailParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams, so a change to src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.UpdateUserEmailParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→27 src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.UpdateUserParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.updateUserAndReturn→src.models.user.UpdateUserParams.UpdateUserParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserParams, so a change to src.models.user.UpdateUserParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.UpdateUserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→28 src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.updatePasswordAndConfirm→src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams.UpdateUserPasswordParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams, so a change to src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.UpdateUserPasswordParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→29 src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.updatePhoneAndReturn→src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams.UpdateUserPhoneParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams, so a change to src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.UpdateUserPhoneParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→30 src.services.user uses src.models.user.UserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.services.user uses a type in src.models.user.UserParams.
- The types involved
src.services.user.insertUserAndReturn→src.models.user.UserParams.UserParams
- Direction
- src.services.user uses src.models.user.UserParams, so a change to src.models.user.UserParams can break src.services.user, while a change to src.services.user can't break src.models.user.UserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.services.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
38→20 src.utils uses src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in src.utils uses a type in src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams.
- The types involved
src.utils.createToken→src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams.DatabaseUserParams
- Direction
- src.utils uses src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams, so a change to src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams can break src.utils, while a change to src.utils can't break src.models.user.DatabaseUserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: src.utils uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→12 tests.functions.transaction uses src.models.transaction.DepositParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in tests.functions.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.DepositParams.
- The types involved
tests.functions.transaction.insertDeposit→src.models.transaction.DepositParams.DepositParams
- Direction
- tests.functions.transaction uses src.models.transaction.DepositParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.DepositParams can break tests.functions.transaction, while a change to tests.functions.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.DepositParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: tests.functions.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→18 tests.functions.transaction uses src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in tests.functions.transaction uses a type in src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams.
- The types involved
tests.functions.transaction.makeWithdraw→src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams.WithdrawParams
- Direction
- tests.functions.transaction uses src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams, so a change to src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams can break tests.functions.transaction, while a change to tests.functions.transaction can't break src.models.transaction.WithdrawParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: tests.functions.transaction uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→19 tests.functions.user uses src.models.user.CardParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in tests.functions.user uses a type in src.models.user.CardParams.
- The types involved
tests.functions.user.insertCard→src.models.user.CardParams.CardParams
- Direction
- tests.functions.user uses src.models.user.CardParams, so a change to src.models.user.CardParams can break tests.functions.user, while a change to tests.functions.user can't break src.models.user.CardParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: tests.functions.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→22 tests.functions.user uses src.models.user.LoginUserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in tests.functions.user uses a type in src.models.user.LoginUserParams.
- The types involved
tests.functions.user.insertUserAndLogin→src.models.user.LoginUserParams.LoginUserParams
- Direction
- tests.functions.user uses src.models.user.LoginUserParams, so a change to src.models.user.LoginUserParams can break tests.functions.user, while a change to tests.functions.user can't break src.models.user.LoginUserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: tests.functions.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→30 tests.functions.user uses src.models.user.UserParams✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in tests.functions.user uses a type in src.models.user.UserParams.
- The types involved
tests.functions.user.insertUserAndLogin→src.models.user.UserParams.UserParams
- Direction
- tests.functions.user uses src.models.user.UserParams, so a change to src.models.user.UserParams can break tests.functions.user, while a change to tests.functions.user can't break src.models.user.UserParams.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: tests.functions.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→32 tests.functions.user uses tests.functions.user.unauthUser✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in tests.functions.user uses a type in tests.functions.user.unauthUser.
- The types involved
tests.functions.user.unauthUser→tests.functions.user.unauthUser.HttpMethod
- Direction
- tests.functions.user uses tests.functions.user.unauthUser, so a change to tests.functions.user.unauthUser can break tests.functions.user, while a change to tests.functions.user can't break tests.functions.user.unauthUser.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: tests.functions.user uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2025 — Injection | 4 | Medium |
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 3 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a CI pipeline to automatically build, test, and enforce security standards on every change, ensuring regressions are caught immediately. Simultaneously, document key architectural decisions in a dedicated folder to preserve design context and rationale. Finally, enhance the project's external documentation with concrete usage examples and integrate structured logging to improve operational visibility and maintainability.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | +6.8 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +5.3 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +5.3 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. | +5.1 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
| Adopt pino (or winston) and log at meaningful points in the services you run. | +4.4 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +2.8 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +1.9 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +1.8 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 4.4 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
How the grades work
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.
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.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
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. 61 of 64 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 64 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 25 of 34 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| 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 |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D11 Test Reliability — 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. Test reliability not scored — the JavaScript/TypeScript suite (jest via `npm install --ignore-scripts` (no lockfile) in the repository root (0 tests)) ran but surfaced no test cases to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised.
- 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. This repository's 1 package.json manifest(s) WERE read and their pinning discipline assessed; what went unanswered is the currency half, because answering it needs a lockfile resolved to CONCRETE versions and this repository's 1 committed lockfile(s) are in a format this engine does not resolve. The resolver reads pnpm-lock.yaml, package-lock.json / npm-shrinkwrap.json at lockfileVersion 2 or 3, yarn.lock in both the classic and berry dialects, and bun's text bun.lock; what it cannot read is bun.lockb, a binary serialisation of bun's install graph with no published layout, and a lockfileVersion 1 package-lock.json, which is a differently-shaped nested tree. So nothing here could be graded and registry.npmjs.org was never asked. This is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: the remedy is to write the reader for the format this repository commits, and no change to the scan image or the egress allowlist can close it.
- D14 License Compliance — 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. Not scored — this repository declares package.json manifests but commits no lockfile this pass can resolve (npm, pnpm, yarn and bun each write a different one, and `bun.lockb` is a binary format with no published shape), so the set of packages it actually ships is not resolvable from the checkout: its declarations carry version RANGES, and grading whichever release happens to be newest today would be a verdict about a dependency graph this repository has not pinned. Commit the lock and this dimension grades its production dependencies against registry.npmjs.org. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
- 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-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable (1 contributor(s) across 999 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). Concentration needs a team to concentrate: with one contributor there is nobody to spread the knowledge to, so there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (package.json), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict. For npm the surface is what a published package.json's entry points (exports, main, module, types) export, followed through the source; an entry that names build output the tree does not commit (dist/, build/) is not followed back to source, because only a tsconfig outDir/rootDir pair states that mapping and a bundler's input lives in executable configuration this engine does not evaluate.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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 scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; osv was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that osv is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — 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. All 188 production source file(s) in this repository were read, and every one is under the ~2,400-byte (~100-line) size floor this dimension measures over (or declares itself generated), so there is no significant file to judge and knowledge freshness is not applicable. This is the size of the repository's files, not a file the engine failed to read.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — 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 scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned. 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) (npm) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; osv was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that osv is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- 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 REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
- C1 Data Protection — 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. 'knex' is imported (src/data/connection.ts:1), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
- C3 Audit Trail — 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. 'knex' is imported (src/data/connection.ts:1), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
- C4 Data Retention — 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. 'knex' is imported (src/data/connection.ts:1), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — 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. 'knex' is imported (src/data/connection.ts:1), but no entity, schema, table or model declaration this check reads was found beside it, so whether personal data is stored could not be decided.
- P8 Schema migrations — 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. The schema may be created by a runner, a deploy script or a config file outside what this check reads, so an absence here is our blind spot rather than a missing migration strategy. The card abstains instead of scoring. You can widen what we reach: if the schema is created and evolved by a tool this check does not name, naming it lets us teach the detector to read it.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Go, PHP, Dart, Kotlin, Ruby, Scala, Java, Python and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and no named async function in this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, nor any Go, PHP or Dart function or Kotlin suspend function, makes a request that can be cancelled (fetch, axios, ky, ofetch; net/http, net.Dial; amphp; Dio; Ktor, OkHttp), so there is nothing to judge, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Kotlin, Python, PHP, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Rust source only, and no C# was loaded, and this repository's JavaScript/TypeScript, Python and PHP make no call through a named logger, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- 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.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- 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.
- 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.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D9 · Test Distribution
188 test methods: 188 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 188 `it`/`test` case(s) across 21 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 188 tests.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 2612 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is a single cohesive document covering the project overview, technologies used, and an outline of architecture/design docs (including installation, usage, contribution, licensing, PR, fork, clone, dependency install, branch creation, testing, documentation, commitments, PR, review, merge, license), with a strong presence of images. It is clear but thin on concrete examples for the outlined commands.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 6.0/10. — The repository's root README is a single cohesive document covering the project overview, technologies used, and an outline of architecture/design docs (including installation, usage, contribution, licensing, PR, fork, clone, dependency install, branch creation, testing, documentation, commitments, PR, review, merge, license), with a strong presence of images. It is clear but thin on concrete examples for the outlined commands.
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 build units (npm) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D27 · Navigability
93 % of calls cross a namespace and 0 % go through an interface, but 3 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
4 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 4 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. osv was not scanned (osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
D31 · IaC & Container Security
3 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 1 medium, 1 low.
What to do
- 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 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-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).
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 1 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm). Partial dependency scan: 1 of 2 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm), and the findings above are real and complete for them. osv was not scanned (osv: the scanner produced no output at all, so no dependency was actually scanned), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 11 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.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
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.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
C2 · Access Controls
- Authorization IS enforced here (by route guards, auth middleware or checks that refuse a caller) — this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is a NAMED rule set: who may do what is encoded inline where it is checked, so the rules can't be listed, reviewed or tested apart from the code that applies them. Recommendation, not a defect.
What to do
- Name the access rules — roles/permissions declared once (a @Roles/@Permissions decorator with its guard, a CASL ability, a casbin model, or Supabase CREATE POLICY) and consulted where access is checked, so the rule set is reviewable and testable on its own.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
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.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README.md runs `npm run test`, but no package.json declares a `test` script. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, 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:111
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README.md runs `npm run test`, but no package.json declares a `test` script.
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P10 · Library API & versioning
P2 · Observability
- No logging call was found in the 187 JavaScript/TypeScript production file(s) this check read across 1 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (JavaScript/TypeScript: pino, winston, bunyan, log4js, loglevel, consola, the NestJS Logger) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt pino (or winston) and log at meaningful points in the services you run.
- Add OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (@opentelemetry/sdk-node) so requests are traceable across the system, not just health-probable.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Run what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's javascript-typescript pack, `semgrep --config=p/typescript`, or eslint-plugin-security — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
R1 · Type Safety
R10 · Code Duplication
- 6 duplicated blocks under src/services/ have copies in at least two of the sibling directories transaction, user — 4 of them are reported below, and 2 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 6 and which does not depend on how exactly each block's copies still match. That concentration is one structural fact, not 6 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 6 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/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:8
- src/controllers/transaction/insertCardTransaction.ts:6 · src/controllers/transaction/insertDeposit.ts:6 · src/controllers/transaction/insertPix.ts:6 · src/controllers/transaction/insertTransaction.ts:6 — the 4 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. There is one copy in each of 4 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/controllers/transaction/insertCardTransaction.ts:6
- src/controllers/transaction/makeCardPay.ts:6 · src/controllers/transaction/makeWithdraw.ts:6 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/controllers/transaction/makeCardPay.ts:6
- src/controllers/transaction/insertCardTransaction.ts:1 · src/controllers/transaction/insertDeposit.ts:1 · src/controllers/transaction/insertPix.ts:1 · src/controllers/transaction/insertTransaction.ts:1 · +1 more site(s) not listed — the 5 copies are spread across 5 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/controllers/transaction/insertCardTransaction.ts:1
- src/controllers/transaction/makeCardPay.ts:1 · src/controllers/transaction/makeWithdraw.ts:1 · src/controllers/user/loginUser.ts:1 · src/controllers/user/updateUserEmail.ts:1 · +2 more site(s) not listed — the 6 copies are spread across 6 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/controllers/transaction/makeCardPay.ts:1
- src/middlewares/user/verifyCardBody.ts:7 · src/middlewares/user/verifyUpdateCardPassword.ts:7 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/middlewares/user/verifyCardBody.ts:7
- src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:31 · src/services/transaction/makeWithdrawAndReturn.ts:20 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:31
- src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:8 · src/services/transaction/makeWithdrawAndReturn.ts:6 · src/services/user/deleteUserAndConfirm.ts:6 · src/services/user/updatePasswordAndConfirm.ts:6 — 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/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:8
- src/middlewares/transaction/verifyCardPay.ts:5 · src/middlewares/transaction/verifyDepositTransaction.ts:5 · src/middlewares/transaction/verifyOutputTransaction.ts:5 · src/middlewares/transaction/verifyPixValue.ts:5 · +8 more site(s) not listed — the 12 copies are spread across 2 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 12 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/middlewares/transaction/verifyCardPay.ts:5
- src/repositories/transaction/createCardTransaction.ts:4 · src/repositories/transaction/removeValue.ts:4 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 55 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/repositories/transaction/createCardTransaction.ts:4
- src/services/transaction/insertCardTransactionAndReturn.ts:12 · src/services/user/updateCardPasswordAndConfirm.ts:10 — 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/services/transaction/insertCardTransactionAndReturn.ts:12
- src/controllers/user/insertCard.ts:1 · src/controllers/user/insertUser.ts:1 — 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/controllers/user/insertCard.ts:1
- src/repositories/user/refreshUserEmail.ts:7 · src/repositories/user/refreshUserPhone.ts:7 — the 2 copies sit in sibling files in one directory, so check first whether one of them (or an existing module there) already owns this behaviour and the others should call it; otherwise extract it into one module in that directory and have each site call it. — src/repositories/user/refreshUserEmail.ts:7
- src/schemas/transaction/GeneralTransactionSchema.ts:4 · src/schemas/user/GeneralUserSchema.ts:7 — the two spans are one implementation copied and then locally edited — 61 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/schemas/transaction/GeneralTransactionSchema.ts:4
- src/services/transaction/deleteTransactionAndConfirm.ts:11 · src/services/user/updateEmailAndReturn.ts:7 — 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/services/transaction/deleteTransactionAndConfirm.ts:11
- src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:9 · src/services/transaction/makeWithdrawAndReturn.ts:7 · src/services/user/updatePasswordAndConfirm.ts:7 · src/services/user/updatePhoneAndReturn.ts:5 — 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/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:9
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.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
R3 · Large Files
R4 · Test Coverage
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗ — read from this repository's package.json scripts and corroborated against its CI workflows. A script counts when its name or command matches the step: `test` for the suite, `lint` or `prettier` for linting, `typecheck`/`type-check`/`tsc` for type checking. ✗ therefore means no script or CI step under those names was found, NOT that the step is absent from your pipeline — a task invoked by a runner this check does not read, or named something else entirely, is not seen and is worth confirming before acting on a cross. A ✓ means the wiring is DECLARED — a script or CI step under those names exists. It is not a statement that the step passes, or that it runs at all: nothing here installs a dependency or executes a suite.
What to do
- Add eslint and `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
R9 · Circular Imports
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- `app.listen(…)` serves plain HTTP on a network address, and nothing in its package enforces HTTPS: no TLS served (`https.createServer`, Fastify `https`, Nest `httpsOptions`), no redirect of plain requests to `https://`, no `Strict-Transport-Security` (helmet sends it by default), and no TLS-terminating proxy configuration committed beside it — so a browser may talk to it in clear text. (−2.0 on this card.) — src/server.ts:5
What to do
- Enforce HTTPS on each listed server: serve TLS itself, or redirect plain requests to `https://` and send `Strict-Transport-Security` (`helmet()` does by default) behind the TLS-terminating proxy — and commit that proxy's configuration beside the service. A server only this machine reaches should bind `127.0.0.1`.
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X5 · Nullable reference types
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 94% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 86% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 55% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 29% | Weak — gated by R6, P1, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 79% | Strong | Solid. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'knex' (src/data/connection.ts:1) but declares no persisted model this check reads (TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entities, Mongoose schemas, Sequelize or Drizzle tables, Knex migrations, Prisma models). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether its changes need an audit trail could not be established, and the trail's absence is not scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'knex' (src/data/connection.ts:1) but declares no persisted model this check reads (TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entities, Mongoose schemas, Sequelize or Drizzle tables, Knex migrations, Prisma models). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether a retention limit applies here could not be established, and its absence is not scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'knex' (src/data/connection.ts:1) but declares no persisted model this check reads (TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entities, Mongoose schemas, Sequelize or Drizzle tables, Knex migrations, Prisma models). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so whether data-subject rights apply here could not be established, and their absence is not scored.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
Not included — 63 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — Not applicable: this repository's TypeScript imports no dependency-injection container and defines no container of its own — nothing that both registers and resolves bindings, and nothing that names two lifetimes — so nothing holds one lifetime's instance while handing out another's.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — no exported interface declares behaviour
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; 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.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: this repository stores data through 'knex' (src/data/connection.ts:1) but declares no persisted model this check reads (TypeORM/MikroORM/sequelize-typescript/NestJS-Mongoose entities, Mongoose schemas, Sequelize or Drizzle tables, Knex migrations, Prisma models). Personal data may be written through raw SQL or a hosted backend, so the absence of a personal-data field here is not evidence that none is stored, and encryption at rest is not scored over a subject that could not be established.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency currency not established — no reader for this repository's lockfile format
- D14 License Compliance — npm licences not graded — this npm repository commits no lockfile this pass can resolve
- D16 Bus Factor — single-contributor repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 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.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — every production source file is under the ~100-line size floor — too little code for knowledge freshness to be judged
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D4 Code Duplication — This repository's production source (.ts) is not read by D4's token comparison, which compares .NET source: duplication in it is measured by R10 Code Duplication, the frontend lens's card running the same clone algorithm over the JS/TS token stream. Not scored here — read the R10 card for this repository's duplication.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D5 Coupling — Not applicable — this npm build ships 1 production module(s), so there is no coupling BETWEEN modules to measure. (Its test and non-production modules are not part of the shipped graph.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured: of the 1 type(s) found, none both holds instance state and has two or more methods whose shared use of it could be read (1 with fewer than two methods), so LCOM4 is undefined for every type in this repository. Not scored — the metric does not apply here, and this is not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the JavaScript/TypeScript half could not be measured — the jest suite in the repository root ran and not one test passed (FAIL tests/user/insertCard.test.ts), so the coverage would describe the failed run, not the code. Coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. The named suite step is one the repository's maintainers can perform; once it passes, the real number is measured on the next scan. Alternatively, commit the lcov/Cobertura report your CI produces and it is read without a re-run.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the JavaScript/TypeScript source (service entry point: src/app.ts:13 (express()))
- P8 Schema migrations — Knex is declared, but the schema-migration mechanism could not be identified. Our limit, not a verdict on this repository.
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (lcov — `jest --coverage --coverageReporters=lcovonly`) 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
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for tinybench, mitata, benchmark.js, benny or vitest `bench(...)` calls in files that import them (or `*.bench.*` files), or one of those in a package.json, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: TypeScript/JavaScript runs on a garbage-collected runtime that gives a program no allocation-control idiom to choose on a hot path — no pools, stack allocation or value types — so allocation awareness is not something this code can be rated on.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — uses a bun lockfile — dependency freshness not measured here; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X20 Mistyped argument guard — This check asks whether an argument guard reports an EMPTY value as a NULL one, which needs a language that throws a null-specific argument exception — .NET's ArgumentNullException, the JVM's NullPointerException, Dart's ArgumentError.notNull. This repository contains none of those languages: the ones it is written in have a single exception for a bad argument, so there is no pair of exceptions to confuse and nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — Not applicable: this check looks for a collection written by a callback on one thread while the body waiting on it touches it on another, and in this repository's languages no collection is reachable from two threads at once. TypeScript/JavaScript runs every callback on the one thread that owns its objects: a callback runs only when the body waiting on it has yielded, never alongside it, and a worker thread receives a COPY of what it is sent. A SharedArrayBuffer carries raw bytes, never an Array, Map or Set, so no collection is reachable from two threads at once. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — Not applicable: this check looks for a loop whose body adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking, invalidating the enumerator it holds, and in this repository's languages that cannot happen. JavaScript and TypeScript have no iterator that a change can invalidate: an `Array` is walked by index against its live length, and a `Map` or `Set` by the ECMAScript specification's live entry list, so a body that adds to, removes from or empties what it walks raises nothing — every loop form (`for…of`, `for…in`, `forEach`, `map`, `filter`, `reduce`, `entries()`) on every built-in collection (`Array`, `Map`, `Set`, plain objects, `URLSearchParams`, `Headers`, `FormData`) runs to completion. Such a loop can still skip an element or never end, which is a different defect and not the one this check asks about. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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)
Critical — 1 finding(s)
- REDACTED
Serious — 25 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/middlewares/user/verifyCardBody.ts:7
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:31
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/controllers/user/insertCard.ts:1
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2 locations) src/repositories/user/refreshUserEmail.ts:7
- REDACTED
- Coverage not measured — JavaScript/TypeScript suite
- No CI pipeline
- No structured logging
- Duplication concentrated across 2 sibling directories (6 clone groups) src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:8
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 4 locations) src/controllers/transaction/insertCardTransaction.ts:6
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) src/controllers/transaction/makeCardPay.ts:6
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 5 locations) src/controllers/transaction/insertCardTransaction.ts:1
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 6 locations) src/controllers/transaction/makeCardPay.ts:1
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 4 locations) src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:8
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 12 locations) src/middlewares/transaction/verifyCardPay.ts:5
- Duplicated block with local edits (8 matched lines × 2 locations) src/repositories/transaction/createCardTransaction.ts:4
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) src/services/transaction/insertCardTransactionAndReturn.ts:12
- Duplicated block with local edits (6 matched lines × 2 locations) src/schemas/transaction/GeneralTransactionSchema.ts:4
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2 locations) src/services/transaction/deleteTransactionAndConfirm.ts:11
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 4 locations) src/services/transaction/makeCardPayAndReturn.ts:9
- No lint or typecheck script
Minor — 8 finding(s)
- No named authorization policies
- Scattered collaborators
- REDACTED
- No ADRs
- No architecture diagram/doc
- README/code drift README.md:111
- No SAST
- No app-layer HTTPS enforcement detected src/server.ts:5
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| 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-5f2fa76ec2c242779bf651bfb0180d50/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | 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-5f2fa76ec2c242779bf651bfb0180d50/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | 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 . | 4 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | 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 |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 3 | 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. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| 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 | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 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 |