Aggregates.NET — Watchdog Audit

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

charlessolar/Aggregates.NET is in a workable but fragile state (51%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.

The area that most needs attention is Maturity (45%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Code Health (50%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); build/run (quick start) section to the root README (Documentation (README)); 2 Largest orphaned file finding(s) (Knowledge Freshness).

For scale: Small (~7,770 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

Code Health 50% Adequate · gated by X5 Architecture 74% Strong Maturity 45% Weak · gated by D34, M2 Readiness 56% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 67% Adequate · gated by D29 Performance 62% Adequate

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.

Maturity 45% · 46% weightCode Health 50% · 25% weightReadiness 56% · 14% weightPerformance 62% · 8% weightSecurity 67% · 4% weightArchitecture 74% · 2% weight

Raise Maturity 45 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 51 → ~56.

Code composition — where the lines go

Business logic 17%Plumbing 45%Tests 38%

New since the last scan (6+)

6 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-07-29) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

D22 · Inconsistent naming for retrieval operations. 'Get' implies a mandatory return (or exception on failure), while 'TryGet' implies a safe, non-throwing retrieval. However, both 'Get' and 'TryGet' in the interface return the entity (not a bool/optional), making the semantic difference between 'Get' and 'TryGet' confusing. Additionally, 'Get' and 'TryGet' have identical signatures (plus bucket), suggesting they might be redundant or one should return an optional/nullable type instead of throwing.
D22 · The child entity repository interface duplicates the 'Get' and 'TryGet' naming convention but omits the 'bucket' parameter found in the parent interface. This creates an inconsistent API surface where the same operation (retrieval) has different parameters depending on the generic signature, which is confusing for consumers.
D22 · Redundant/Confusing service execution patterns. 'ContextExtensions.Service' and 'IProcessor.Process' both handle service execution. 'ContextExtensions' offers overloads for both direct service instances and Action<T> delegates, while 'IProcessor' also offers both. This suggests a duplication of intent: is the context extension the public API or the processor? The naming 'Service' vs 'Process' is inconsistent for the same conceptual operation.
D22 · Inconsistent setup methods for event consumption. 'IEventSubscriber' uses 'Setup' for general endpoints, while 'IEventStoreConsumer' uses 'SetupProjection' and 'SetupChildrenProjection'. This splits the concept of 'starting to listen' into multiple methods with different signatures and naming conventions.
P12 · Coverage collected but not gated
P12 · Test suite runs only after the merge

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €4,700–€24,000

Cost to rebuild	€4,700–€24,000 (0.1 person-years (78–249 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexity	Standard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor	0.7× (at 51% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shape	Small · 44% boilerplate · 29% straight-line · 27% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€14,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 45% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.1) — service/app × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

Resolve the 2 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with EventStoreClient.cs, Program.cs.

+5.6 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.

+5.3 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality

Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.

+4.8 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk

This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 45%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.

Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (7,770 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 45%

→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.

Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage

Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.

Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort

→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).

Architecture — module dependency graph

D29 · .NET / C# Static Analysis (SAST) 2.5

At a glance — Performance · 62% · Adequate

The Bad

PF1 · Repo Benchmark discipline 6.0 PF2 · Repo Allocation hygiene 6.3 PF3 · Repo Async & latency hygiene 6.6

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A03:2021 — Injection	8	High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components	4	High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by establishing a formal record of architectural decisions in a dedicated documentation directory to ensure future clarity and consistency. Next, update the root README with a quick-start section to help new contributors understand how to build and run the project. Then, address knowledge freshness by resolving the largest orphaned files, specifically EventStoreClient.cs and Program.cs. Finally, correct the README to accurately reflect the current state of the codebase, particularly regarding Docker containerization.

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

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Resolve the 2 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with EventStoreClient.cs, Program.cs.	+5.6 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.	+5.3 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.	+4.8 pts	Low	Knowledge Freshness
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).	+6.1 pts	Medium	Architecture documentation
Resolve the 6 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with NServiceBusMessaging.cs (3), EventStoreClient.cs (2), VersionRegistrar.cs.	+2.9 pts	Low	Explicit Debt
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+5.8 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.	+5.1 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10.	+4.5 pts	Medium	Documentation Quality

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 26 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 4% slop · 27% mixed · 69% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs	2.4	Slop	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
.github/workflows/main.yml	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NServiceBusMessaging.cs	5.8	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: Dead code: NSBMutator
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/MutateState.cs	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Id.cs	7.4	Mixed	Test Quality: No assertions: ShouldCreateIdFromString
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/VersionRegistrar.cs	7.6	Mixed	Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock
src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/NServiceBus/NSBUnitOfWork.cs	8.0	Near-clean	Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): ShouldWriteOutgoingHeaders
src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/ESConfigure.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreConsumer.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/NSBConfigure.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson/Internal/JsonMessageSerializer.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
src/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson/Internal/ResolverBinder.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/EntityFactory.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/EventSubscriber.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/Processor.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/Repository.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/StoreEntities.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
src/Aggregates.NET/State.cs	8.2	Near-clean	Explicit Debt: TodoComment

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. 52 of 56 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 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.

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

What we checked — 56 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions

Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 53 of 96 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
jscpd	Code duplication	—	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.302	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fc7f0-894e-764c-a141-8a3e6b4f804f.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.

When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
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 the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
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.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was NSBUnitOfWork.MutateIncoming at 19.

NSBUnitOfWork.MutateIncoming (cyclomatic 19)src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBUnitOfWork.cs:18

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was EventStoreClient.CreateProjection at 28.

EventStoreClient.CreateProjection (cognitive 28)src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:219

UnitOfWorkExecutor.Invoke (cognitive 17)src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/UnitOfWorkExecutor.cs:29

CommandAcceptor.Invoke (cognitive 16)src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/CommandAcceptor.cs:26

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

3 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:108

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs:152

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2)src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:14

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 24 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D8 · Code Coverage9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

Line coverage 74.0%, branch coverage 67.0%.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

261 test methods: 261 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 skipped, 6 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 261 tests.

No assertions (empty test): ShouldWriteOutgoingHeaderssrc/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/NServiceBus/NSBUnitOfWork.cs:22

No assertions: ShouldPassDefinedRule · ×5src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Entity.cs:126

Mock framework: FakeItEasy

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

22 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: xunit

Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions · ×22

What to do

Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 33 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 8.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

23 deducted debt markers + 1 dead symbols across 6457 LoC (1.0/KLoC) → score 8.1.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×6src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:243

TodoComment · ×16src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/ESConfigure.cs:94

CommentedOutCodesrc/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson/Internal/JsonMessageSerializer.cs:68

Dead code: NSBMutatorsrc/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:11

What to do

Resolve the 6 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with NServiceBusMessaging.cs (3), EventStoreClient.cs (2), VersionRegistrar.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 issue-level).
Resolve the 16 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with UnitOfWork.cs (3), MutateState.cs (2), ESConfigure.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (16 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 CommentedOutCode finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with JsonMessageSerializer.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

6 projects, 237 source files, 11209 hand-written lines of code (6457 production / 4752 test), 10 inter-project edges.

Monorepo: only 1 of 7 solutions was scored

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

Aggregates.NET has two README files (the main one plus samples/README.md) but the documentation is thin: it documents the library's purpose, a v0.17 note about dropping support for StructureMap/SimpleInjector/liblog logging modules, and the sample structure; there are no architecture or usage guides, no migration notes, and no XML docs despite coverage being 2% across four NuGet packages.

XML-doc coverage: Aggregates.NET · ×5src/Aggregates.NET/Aggregates.NET.csproj

What to do

Improve Documentation Quality — currently 4.0/10. — Aggregates.NET has two README files (the main one plus samples/README.md) but the documentation is thin: it documents the library's purpose, a v0.17 note about dropping support for StructureMap/SimpleInjector/liblog logging modules, and the sample structure; there are no architecture or usage guides, no migration notes, and no XML docs despite coverage being 2% across four NuGet packages.

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

5 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Inconsistent naming for repository retrieval operations. Some use 'Get' while others use 'Plan' for similar retrieval/lookup operations on entities.

Inconsistent naming for verification/checking operations. Some use 'Check' while others use 'Raised' or 'EventChecker' for similar verification logic.

Duplicate method name 'Plan' with different parameter types (TestableId vs Id) causing ambiguity.

Overloaded method 'Plan' exists with different parameter types, which can be confusing.

The method 'Plan' is overloaded with different parameter types, which can be confusing.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for repository retrieval operations. Some use 'Get'… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for verification/checking operations. Some use… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Duplicate method name 'Plan' with different parameter types (TestableId… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

4 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 163 exposed types.

Inconsistent naming for retrieval operations. 'Get' implies a mandatory return (or exception on failure), while 'TryGet' implies a safe, non-throwing retrieval. However, both 'Get' and 'TryGet' in the interface return the entity (not a bool/optional), making the semantic difference between 'Get' and 'TryGet' confusing. Additionally, 'Get' and 'TryGet' have identical signatures (plus bucket), suggesting they might be redundant or one should return an optional/nullable type instead of throwing.

The child entity repository interface duplicates the 'Get' and 'TryGet' naming convention but omits the 'bucket' parameter found in the parent interface. This creates an inconsistent API surface where the same operation (retrieval) has different parameters depending on the generic signature, which is confusing for consumers.

Redundant/Confusing service execution patterns. 'ContextExtensions.Service' and 'IProcessor.Process' both handle service execution. 'ContextExtensions' offers overloads for both direct service instances and Action<T> delegates, while 'IProcessor' also offers both. This suggests a duplication of intent: is the context extension the public API or the processor? The naming 'Service' vs 'Process' is inconsistent for the same conceptual operation.

Inconsistent setup methods for event consumption. 'IEventSubscriber' uses 'Setup' for general endpoints, while 'IEventStoreConsumer' uses 'SetupProjection' and 'SetupChildrenProjection'. This splits the concept of 'starting to listen' into multiple methods with different signatures and naming conventions.

What to do

Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for retrieval operations. 'Get' implies a mandatory… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 The child entity repository interface duplicates the 'Get' and 'TryGet'… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Redundant/Confusing service execution patterns.… finding(s) in Internal API Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D24 · Comment Value / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

26 valuable / 0 redundant across 200 sampled comments.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

0 of 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D27 · Navigability6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

92 % of calls cross a namespace and 14 % go through an interface, but 42 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.

Scattered collaborators

What to do

Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

8 finding(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×8.github/workflows/main.yml:16detected by semgrep finding

What to do

Resolve the 8 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with main.yml (8). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 7.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 7.0.0 · ×4detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

Resolve the 4 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

45 of 45 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs.

Largest orphaned file · ×2src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs

Dormant codebase

What to do

Resolve the 2 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with EventStoreClient.cs, Program.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: MutateIncoming.cs↔MutateOutgoing.cs 56%

Change coupling: MutateIncoming.cs ↔ MutateOutgoing.cssrc/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/MutateIncoming.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

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

0 of 460 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 · Captive dependencies5.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`EventSubscriber` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IEventStoreConsumer consumer`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IEventStoreConsumer` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — EventSubscriber.cs:12
`TrackChildren` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IEventStoreConsumer consumer`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IEventStoreConsumer` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — TrackChildren.cs:12
`EventStoreClient` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IEnumerable mutators`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `Func` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — EventStoreClient.cs:17

What to do

Don't inject scoped/transient services into singletons; resolve them per-use via IServiceScopeFactory or a factory delegate, or align the lifetimes.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons4.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`EventSubscriber` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_endpoint, _version, _setup, _disposed; e.g. `_endpoint` at line 40). — EventSubscriber.cs:12
`TrackChildren` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_endpoint, _version; e.g. `_endpoint` at line 37). — TrackChildren.cs:12
`EventStoreClient` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_disposed; e.g. `_disposed` at line 85). — EventStoreClient.cs:17

What to do

Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX6 · Interface segregation9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

`ISettings` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — ISettings.cs:6

What to do

Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×12) — TestableApplication.cs:51, TestableEventStore.cs:65, TestableEventStore.cs:70, …

What to do

Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×10) — EventStoreClient.cs:278, EventStoreClient.cs:422, EventStoreConsumer.cs:167, …

What to do

Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents 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/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy8.0 / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P2 · Observability7.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 3/5 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 5, 0 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — 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.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

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

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

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

No benchmark suite was found. Where code is performance-sensitive, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 4 use(s) across 7,790 production line(s) (~0.5/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.

Do you agree with this assessment?

PF3 · Async & latency hygiene6.6 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Prefer awaiting it: make the caller `async` and `await` instead. Where a synchronous entry point must stay — a public sync API you cannot break, or a process entry point that must not return until the work finishes — the block belongs in ONE documented bridge and never inside code that is already async; and where it already is that bridge, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task fails the call instead of hanging the process. (×2) — ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:17, ServiceCollectionExtensions.cs:28

What to do

Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X2 · Cancellation propagation5.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Only 4/18 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×13) — Configuration.cs:62, EventSubscriber.cs:75, UnitOfWork.cs:111, …
No CancellationToken parameter — the body observes an ambient token instead (a field or a context object), so the work does stop on cancellation, but a caller cannot cancel this call independently of the owner that created that token. — BusExtensions.cs:40

What to do

Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×6) — VersionRegistrar.cs:112, NServiceBusMessaging.cs:40, NServiceBusMessaging.cs:55, …

What to do

Swallowed exception (empty catch)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging5.4 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×2) — LoggerExtensions.cs:81, LoggerExtensions.cs:95

What to do

Interpolated log message defeats structured logging

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

0/5 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.

What to do

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

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

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

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	50%	Adequate — gated by X5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture	74%	Strong	Strongest area.
Maturity	45%	Weak — gated by D34, M2	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	56%	Adequate — gated by P3	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security	67%	Adequate — gated by D29	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance	62%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.

Not included — 42 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
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.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (a message-bus package)
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): an event-store package (Marten/EventStore); an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events)
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 19 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×8

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:16 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:19 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:26 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/cache@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/cache@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/cache/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:31 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/cache@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/cache@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/cache/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:53 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:60 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/main.yml:68 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: dorny/test-reporter@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `dorny/test-reporter@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/dorny/test-reporter/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: run-shell-injection .github/workflows/main.yml:77 — Using variable interpolation `${{...}}` with `github` context data in a `run:` step could allow an attacker to inject their own code into the runner. This would allow them to steal secrets and code. `github` context data can have arbitrary user input and should be treated as untrusted. Instead, use an intermediate environment variable with `env:` to store the data and use the environment variable in the `run:` script. Reference it as a shell VARIABLE rather than a `${{ }}` interpolation, using your shell's own syntax (`"$ENVVAR"` in bash, `$env:ENVVAR` in PowerShell), so the value is passed as data and never re-expanded as code.

D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×6

EmptyCatchBlock src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:243 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:252 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NServiceBusMessaging.cs:40 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NServiceBusMessaging.cs:55 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NServiceBusMessaging.cs:70 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
EmptyCatchBlock src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/VersionRegistrar.cs:112 — empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×4

High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 7.0.0 — System.Formats.Asn1 7.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.1
High CVE: System.Text.Json 7.0.3 — System.Text.Json 7.0.3 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted] — upgrade to 8.0.4
High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1

No assertions (empty test): ShouldWriteOutgoingHeaders src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/NServiceBus/NSBUnitOfWork.cs:22 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.

Warning — 38 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×16

TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/ESConfigure.cs:94 — // Todo: when implementing another eventstore, dont copy this, do it a better way — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:232 — // todo: the client will eventually have "emit" option
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreConsumer.cs:75 — // Todo: is it necessary to ensure JSON.parse works? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/NSBConfigure.cs:149 — // todo: not sure this is needed anymore since NSb uses microsoft too now — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson/Internal/ResolverBinder.cs:78 — // Todo: this is where I would substitute the type info with a unique string to represent the object without namespaces — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/EntityFactory.cs:44 — // Todo: Can use a simple duck type helper incase snapshot type != TState due to refactor or something — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/EventSubscriber.cs:44 — // Todo: creating the projection is dependant on EventStore - which defeats the purpose of the different assembly — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/MutateState.cs:51 — // Todo: cheap hack NSB creates events as IEvent__impl — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/MutateState.cs:58 — // Todo: can suport "named" events with an attribute here so instead of routing based on object type — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/Processor.cs:33 — // Todo: both units of work should come from the pipeline not the container — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/Repository.cs:94 — // Todo: too many operations on this class, make a "EntityWriter" contract which does event, oob, and snapshot writing — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/StoreEntities.cs:83 — // Todo: pass parent instead of Id[]? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs:20 — // Todo: if we are to set the eventid here its important that an event is processed in the same order every retry — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs:99 — // Todo: If current message is an event, detect if they've modified any entities and warn them. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs:120 — // Todo: what else can we put in here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/Aggregates.NET/State.cs:18 — // todo: with the private contract resolver is this needed? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×5

No assertions: ShouldPassDefinedRule src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Entity.cs:126 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: ShouldGetAStringHash src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Extensions/String.cs:46 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: ShouldCreateIdFromString src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Id.cs:9 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: ShouldCreateIdFromGuid src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Id.cs:15 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
No assertions: ShouldCreateIdFromLong src/Aggregates.NET.UnitTests/Common/Id.cs:22 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · NSBUnitOfWork.MutateIncoming (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

NSBUnitOfWork.MutateIncoming (cyclomatic 19) src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBUnitOfWork.cs:18 — NSBUnitOfWork.MutateIncoming has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). Of this number, 10 points are the body's own statements and 9 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×1

Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.6.6 — Legacy — the publisher's replacement is `xunit.v3`; migrate the reference to it.

D16 · Bus Factor · dormant codebase · ×1

dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate — All 45 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness).

D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×1

CommentedOutCode src/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson/Internal/JsonMessageSerializer.cs:68 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines

D17 · Explicit Debt · Dead code · ×1

Dead code: NSBMutator src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:11 — NamedType NSBMutator — no references found in solution.

D18 · Solution Shape · Monorepo · ×1

Monorepo: only 1 of 7 solutions was scored — This repository contains 7 .NET solutions, but a scan analyzes ONE. Every score, lens, and finding here reflects only `Aggregates.NET.sln` — the other 6 (`cake/Build.sln`, `samples/1. HelloWorld/HelloWorld.sln`, `samples/2.. Snapshots/Snapshots.sln`, `samples/3. Children/Children.sln`, `samples/4. Queries/Queries.sln`, `samples/5. Saga/Saga.sln`) were not analyzed and are not represented in the headline. To cover them, scan each solution as its own target and group them in a Solution or Product for a portfolio roll-up. If a secondary solution is an archived or vendored tree, declare it — `.gitattributes` (`path/** linguist-vendored`) or `.editorconfig` (`[path/**] generated_code = true`) — to exclude it from discovery the same way generated code is.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EventStoreClient.CreateProjection (cognitive 28) · ×1

EventStoreClient.CreateProjection (cognitive 28) src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:219 — EventStoreClient.CreateProjection has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · UnitOfWorkExecutor.Invoke (cognitive 17) · ×1

UnitOfWorkExecutor.Invoke (cognitive 17) src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/UnitOfWorkExecutor.cs:29 — UnitOfWorkExecutor.Invoke has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CommandAcceptor.Invoke (cognitive 16) · ×1

CommandAcceptor.Invoke (cognitive 16) src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/CommandAcceptor.cs:26 — CommandAcceptor.Invoke has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent naming for retrieval operations. 'Get' implies a mandatory return (or exception on failure), while 'TryGet' implies a safe, non-throwing retrieval. However, both 'Get' and 'TryGet' in the interface return the entity (not a bool/optional), making the semantic difference between 'Get' and 'TryGet' confusing. Additionally, 'Get' and 'TryGet' have identical signatures (plus bucket), suggesting they might be redundant or one should return an optional/nullable type instead of throwing. · ×1

Inconsistent naming for retrieval operations. 'Get' implies a mandatory return (or exception on failure), while 'TryGet' implies a safe, non-throwing retrieval. However, both 'Get' and 'TryGet' in the interface return the entity (not a bool/optional), making the semantic difference between 'Get' and 'TryGet' confusing. Additionally, 'Get' and 'TryGet' have identical signatures (plus bucket), suggesting they might be redundant or one should return an optional/nullable type instead of throwing. — Standardize on 'Get' for mandatory retrieval and 'TryGet' for optional retrieval. If 'TryGet' still returns the entity, consider changing the return type to 'TEntity?' or 'Result<TEntity>' to clearly distinguish success/failure paths. Alternatively, if 'TryGet' is just a wrapper that doesn't throw, rename it to 'GetSafe' or similar to avoid confusion with the standard 'Try' pattern. (signatures: Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity>.Get(Id id) | Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity>.Get(string bucket, Id id) | Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity>.TryGet(Id id) | Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity>.TryGet(string bucket, Id id))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · The child entity repository interface duplicates the 'Get' and 'TryGet' naming convention but omits the 'bucket' parameter found in the parent interface. This creates an inconsistent API surface where the same operation (retrieval) has different parameters depending on the generic signature, which is confusing for consumers. · ×1

The child entity repository interface duplicates the 'Get' and 'TryGet' naming convention but omits the 'bucket' parameter found in the parent interface. This creates an inconsistent API surface where the same operation (retrieval) has different parameters depending on the generic signature, which is confusing for consumers. — Align the child entity repository with the parent repository by adding the 'bucket' parameter to 'Get' and 'TryGet' methods, or explicitly document that child entities are scoped to a single bucket. (signatures: Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity, TParent>.Get(Id id) | Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity, TParent>.TryGet(Id id) | Task<TEntity> IRepository<TEntity, TParent>.New(Id id))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant/Confusing service execution patterns. 'ContextExtensions.Service' and 'IProcessor.Process' both handle service execution. 'ContextExtensions' offers overloads for both direct service instances and Action<T> delegates, while 'IProcessor' also offers both. This suggests a duplication of intent · ×1

Redundant/Confusing service execution patterns. 'ContextExtensions.Service' and 'IProcessor.Process' both handle service execution. 'ContextExtensions' offers overloads for both direct service instances and Action<T> delegates, while 'IProcessor' also offers both. This suggests a duplication of intent: is the context extension the public API or the processor? The naming 'Service' vs 'Process' is inconsistent for the same conceptual operation. — Consolidate service execution into one primary path. If 'ContextExtensions' is the public API, ensure 'IProcessor' doesn't duplicate this functionality. Rename 'Service' and 'Process' to a unified term like 'Execute' or 'Handle' if they serve the same purpose. (signatures: Task<TResponse> ContextExtensions.Service<TService, TResponse>(IServiceContext context, TService service) | Task<TResponse> ContextExtensions.Service<TService, TResponse>(IServiceContext context, Action<TService> service) | Task<TResponse> IProcessor.Process<TService, TResponse>(TService service, IServiceProvider container) | Task<TResponse> IProcessor.Process<TService, TResponse>(Action<TService> service, IServiceProvider container))

D22 · Internal API Consistency · Inconsistent setup methods for event consumption. 'IEventSubscriber' uses 'Setup' for general endpoints, while 'IEventStoreConsumer' uses 'SetupProjection' and 'SetupChildrenProjection'. This splits the concept of 'starting to listen' into multiple methods with different signatures and naming conventions. · ×1

Inconsistent setup methods for event consumption. 'IEventSubscriber' uses 'Setup' for general endpoints, while 'IEventStoreConsumer' uses 'SetupProjection' and 'SetupChildrenProjection'. This splits the concept of 'starting to listen' into multiple methods with different signatures and naming conventions. — Unify the entry point for starting event consumption. Use a consistent naming convention like 'Subscribe' or 'StartListening' across all consumer interfaces. (signatures: void IEventSubscriber.Setup(string endpoint, Version version) | Task IEventStoreConsumer.SetupProjection(string endpoint, Version version, Type[] eventTypes) | Task IEventStoreConsumer.SetupChildrenProjection(string endpoint, Version version))

D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1

Change coupling: MutateIncoming.cs ↔ MutateOutgoing.cs src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/MutateIncoming.cs — `src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/MutateIncoming.cs` and `src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/MutateOutgoing.cs` change together 56% of the time (9 of the 16 commits that touched the less-changed of the two, renames followed). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.

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

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:108 — src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:108-120 | src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:134-146 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs:108` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs:152 — src/Aggregates.NET/Internal/UnitOfWork.cs:152-160 | src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBUnitOfWork.cs:71-80 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

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

Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:14 — src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:14-19 | src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:25-30 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Internal/NSBMutator.cs:14` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

Recommendation — 11 finding(s)

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Largest orphaned file · ×2

Largest orphaned file src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Internal/EventStoreClient.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.
Largest orphaned file cake/Program.cs — One of the largest files with no living knowledge remaining — a reasonable place to start a read-through before the aggregate risk above bites.

D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1

No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.

D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for repository retrieval operations. Some use 'Get' while others use 'Plan' for similar retrieval/lookup operations on entities. · ×1

Inconsistent naming for repository retrieval operations. Some use 'Get' while others use 'Plan' for similar retrieval/lookup operations on entities. — Standardize on 'Get' for retrieval operations, or 'Plan' if the operation is specifically about planning a query. (symbols: Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Internal.TestableId), Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Id), Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Get(Aggregates.Id), Aggregates.Contracts.IRepository<TEntity, TParent>.Get(Aggregates.Id))

D21 · Naming Consistency · Inconsistent naming for verification/checking operations. Some use 'Check' while others use 'Raised' or 'EventChecker' for similar verification logic. · ×1

Inconsistent naming for verification/checking operations. Some use 'Check' while others use 'Raised' or 'EventChecker' for similar verification logic. — Standardize on 'Check' for verification methods, or 'Raised' if the method specifically checks for raised events. (symbols: Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Check(Aggregates.Id), Aggregates.IEventChecker<TEntity>.Raised<TEvent>(System.Action<TEvent>), Aggregates.Internal.EventChecker<TEntity, TState>.Check<TChild>(Aggregates.Id))

D21 · Naming Consistency · Duplicate method name 'Plan' with different parameter types (TestableId vs Id) causing ambiguity. · ×1

Duplicate method name 'Plan' with different parameter types (TestableId vs Id) causing ambiguity. — Rename one of the 'Plan' methods to reflect the difference, e.g., 'PlanWithTestableId'. (symbols: Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Internal.TestableId), Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Id))

D21 · Naming Consistency · Overloaded method 'Plan' exists with different parameter types, which can be confusing. · ×1

Overloaded method 'Plan' exists with different parameter types, which can be confusing. — Consider renaming to 'PlanWithTestableId' and 'PlanWithId' for clarity. (symbols: Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Internal.TestableId), Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Id))

D21 · Naming Consistency · The method 'Plan' is overloaded with different parameter types, which can be confusing. · ×1

The method 'Plan' is overloaded with different parameter types, which can be confusing. — Rename to 'PlanWithTestableId' and 'PlanWithId' for clarity. (symbols: Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Internal.TestableId), Aggregates.Internal.TestableRepository<TEntity, TState, TParent>.Plan(Aggregates.Id))

D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1

Bounded contexts not declared — At 6457 LoC across 6 projects the codebase is large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are needed. Name this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2 module groups, e.g. per subsystem) so cross-boundary type coupling can 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"]`.

D27 · Navigability · Scattered collaborators · ×1

Scattered collaborators — 92 % of calls cross a namespace and only 42 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1

Dormant codebase — 45 of 45 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 45 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.

Info — 28 finding(s)

D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×22

Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET).
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 8.0.0 → 10.0.10 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET).
Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 8.0.0 → 10.0.301 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET).
Outdated: NServiceBus — NServiceBus 8.1.6 → 10.2.7 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus).
Outdated: NServiceBus.Callbacks — NServiceBus.Callbacks 4.0.0 → 6.0.1 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus).
Outdated: NServiceBus.Extensions.Logging — NServiceBus.Extensions.Logging 2.0.0 → 4.1.0 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus).
Outdated: System.Memory — System.Memory 4.5.5 → 4.6.3 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus).
Outdated: EventStore.Client.Grpc.PersistentSubscriptions — EventStore.Client.Grpc.PersistentSubscriptions 23.1.0 → 23.3.9 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.EventStore).
Outdated: EventStore.Client.Grpc.ProjectionManagement — EventStore.Client.Grpc.ProjectionManagement 23.1.0 → 23.3.9 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.EventStore).
Outdated: EventStore.Client.Grpc.Streams — EventStore.Client.Grpc.Streams 23.1.0 → 23.3.9 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.EventStore).
Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.3 → 13.0.4 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson).
Outdated: coverlet.collector — coverlet.collector 6.0.0 → 10.0.1 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: FakeItEasy — FakeItEasy 8.1.0 → 9.0.1 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 6.12.0 → 8.10.0 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.8.0 → 18.8.1 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.6.6 → 2.9.3 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: xunit.analyzers — xunit.analyzers 1.10.0 → 1.27.0 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 2.5.6 → 3.1.5 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: XunitXml.TestLogger — XunitXml.TestLogger 3.1.17 → 8.0.0 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.UnitTests).
Outdated: NServiceBus.Callbacks.Testing — NServiceBus.Callbacks.Testing 4.0.0 → 6.0.1 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.Testing).
Outdated: NServiceBus.Testing — NServiceBus.Testing 8.1.0 → 10.1.0 available (referenced by Aggregates.NET.Testing).

D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×5

XML-doc coverage: Aggregates.NET src/Aggregates.NET/Aggregates.NET.csproj — Aggregates.NET: 0 % XML-doc coverage (2/418).
XML-doc coverage: Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus src/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus/Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus.csproj — Aggregates.NET.NServiceBus: 1 % XML-doc coverage (1/153).
XML-doc coverage: Aggregates.NET.EventStore src/Aggregates.NET.EventStore/Aggregates.NET.EventStore.csproj — Aggregates.NET.EventStore: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/33).
XML-doc coverage: Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson src/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson/Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson.csproj — Aggregates.NET.NewtonsoftJson: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/13).
XML-doc coverage: Aggregates.NET.Testing src/Aggregates.NET.Testing/Aggregates.NET.Testing.csproj — Aggregates.NET.Testing: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/198).

D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1

Mock framework: FakeItEasy — Aggregates.NET.UnitTests references FakeItEasy.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .	8	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	dotnet	—	dotnet list Aggregates.NET.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json	4	artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — Data compliance (PII/GDPR) was not assessed in this scan — no ruleset is currently available for it. This says nothing about how this repository handles personal data, in either direction.	0	—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.	0	—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing	provenance	—	provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).	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	—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.	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	—

Run 019fc7f0-894e-764c-a141-8a3e6b4f804f · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Charlessolar/Aggregates.NET

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture — module dependency matrix

At a glance — Code Health · 50% · Adequate · gated by X5

At a glance — Architecture · 74% · Strong

At a glance — Maturity · 45% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 56% · Adequate · gated by P3

At a glance — Security · 67% · Adequate · gated by D29

At a glance — Performance · 62% · Adequate

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts