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.
coreyhaines31/marketingskills carries serious gaps (34%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (17%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Code Health (33%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage); missing tooling (eslint (Tooling).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
Code Health
33%
Weak · gated by D1, D2, R1, R10, R2
Maturity
69%
Adequate
Readiness
17% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, R4, R6, P2, P3
Security
71%
Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 17% · 50% weightCode Health 33% · 27% weightMaturity 69% · 15% weightSecurity 71% · 8% weight
Raise Readiness 17 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 34 → ~52.
New since the last scan (29+)
- D2 · main (cognitive 224) tools/clis/postmark.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 210) tools/clis/intercom.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 168) tools/clis/resend.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 141) tools/clis/typeform.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 118) tools/clis/calendly.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 90) tools/clis/savvycal.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 83) tools/clis/sendgrid.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 69) tools/clis/snov.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 58) tools/clis/apollo.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 57) tools/clis/github-prospects.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 51) tools/clis/clay.js
- D2 · main (cognitive 47) tools/clis/linkedin-ads.js
- D15 · Hotspot: tools/clis/rankparse.js tools/clis/rankparse.js
- D15 · Hotspot: tools/clis/exa.js tools/clis/exa.js
- D15 · Hotspot: tools/clis/github-prospects.js tools/clis/github-prospects.js
- D18 · Dimension evaluation failed
- R10 · Duplicated block (22 lines × 6 locations) tools/clis/adobe-analytics.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) tools/clis/demio.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) tools/clis/ga4.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 3 locations) tools/clis/google-ads.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) tools/clis/hotjar.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2 locations) tools/clis/linkedin-ads.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) tools/clis/beehiiv.js
- R10 · Duplicated block (20 lines × 2 locations) tools/clis/brevo.js
- R2 · Complex function main (cyclomatic 115, cognitive 210) tools/clis/intercom.js
- R2 · Complex function main (cyclomatic 111, cognitive 224) tools/clis/postmark.js
- R2 · Complex function main (cyclomatic 107, cognitive 168) tools/clis/resend.js
- R6 · Tooling
- P2 · No structured logging
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 5 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, implement comprehensive logging using ILogger or Serilog across all projects to establish baseline observability. Next, expand test coverage by adding tests for all currently unreached production modules to ensure full path validation. Then, configure essential tooling by adding eslint, tsc, and a SAST security step to the CI pipeline. Finally, address the single identified gap in automated test coverage to complete the quality assurance framework.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +17.2 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +17.2 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +20.5 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry). | +20.5 pts | Medium | Test Coverage |
| Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI. | +20.5 pts | Medium | Tooling |
| Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package. | +19.4 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it. | +17.2 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript. | +12.4 pts | Medium | Type Safety |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/validate-skill.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/sync-skills.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| tools/clis/kit.js | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 47) |
| tools/clis/activecampaign.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 116) |
| tools/clis/intercom.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 115) |
| tools/clis/postmark.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 111) |
| tools/clis/resend.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 107) |
| tools/clis/brevo.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 106) |
| tools/clis/partnerstack.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 99) |
| tools/clis/paddle.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 99) |
| tools/clis/klaviyo.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 88) |
| tools/clis/typeform.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 72) |
| tools/clis/beehiiv.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 67) |
| tools/clis/livestorm.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 62) |
| tools/clis/trustpilot.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 61) |
| tools/clis/calendly.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 61) |
| tools/clis/wistia.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 58) |
| tools/clis/similarweb.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 57) |
| tools/clis/instantly.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 56) |
| tools/clis/mailchimp.js | 7.8 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: main (cyclomatic 55) |
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. 37 of 38 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 38 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D8D9D12D13D15D16D21D26D27D28D29D34D35AX5M1M2M3M4P1P2P3R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R8R9X1X3X4
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, 138 of 144 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) 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.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- 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.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
65 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was main at 116.
main (cyclomatic 32) tools/clis/tiktok-ads.js:62
main (cyclomatic 20) tools/clis/zapier.js:71
main (cyclomatic 31) tools/clis/meta-ads.js:61
main (cyclomatic 29) tools/clis/segment.js:83
main (cyclomatic 19) tools/clis/supermetrics.js:57
What to do
- Resolve the 4 main (cyclomatic 32) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with linkedin-ads.js, mention-me.js, outreach.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 main (cyclomatic 20) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with amplitude.js, google-ads.js, google-search-console.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 main (cyclomatic 31) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with exa.js, g2.js, meta-ads.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
65 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was main at 224.
main (cognitive 58) tools/clis/tiktok-ads.js:62
main (cognitive 57) tools/clis/pendo.js:55
main (cognitive 210) tools/clis/intercom.js:56
main (cognitive 141) tools/clis/typeform.js:55
main (cognitive 100) tools/clis/trustpilot.js:93
What to do
- Resolve the 3 main (cognitive 58) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with apollo.js, outreach.js, tiktok-ads.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 main (cognitive 57) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ga4.js, github-prospects.js, pendo.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 main (cognitive 210) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with brevo.js, intercom.js. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
0 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: tools/clis/rankparse.js (3×44=132); tools/clis/exa.js (3×31=93); tools/clis/github-prospects.js (2×42=84)
Hotspot: tools/clis/rankparse.js tools/clis/rankparse.js
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
No projects to assess.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
Too little code to assess navigability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
5 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/sync-skills.yml:18
What to do
- Resolve the 5 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with validate-skill.yml (3), sync-skills.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
Every significant source file has living knowledge — recently and meaningfully worked.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- A CI pipeline exists but no test-runner invocation (dotnet test / npm test / pytest / a test job) was found — changes may merge without the suite running.
- A CI pipeline exists but no build invocation (dotnet build / dotnet publish / a build step) was matched — changes may merge without being compiled.
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (e.g. `dotnet test`) and gate merges on it.
- Add an explicit build step to your CI pipeline (e.g. dotnet build / dotnet publish) so every change is compiled before merge.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety
- 0 typed · 64 plain JS
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication
- tools/clis/adobe-analytics.js:134 · tools/clis/kit.js:205 · tools/clis/mailchimp.js:193 · tools/clis/savvycal.js:196 — adobe-analytics.js:134
- tools/clis/demio.js:123 · tools/clis/tolt.js:127 — demio.js:123
- tools/clis/ga4.js:168 · tools/clis/rewardful.js:134 — ga4.js:168
- tools/clis/google-ads.js:163 · tools/clis/meta-ads.js:155 · tools/clis/tiktok-ads.js:164 — google-ads.js:163
- tools/clis/hotjar.js:141 · tools/clis/keywords-everywhere.js:159 — hotjar.js:141
- tools/clis/linkedin-ads.js:159 · tools/clis/zapier.js:136 — linkedin-ads.js:159
- tools/clis/beehiiv.js:220 · tools/clis/sendgrid.js:186 — beehiiv.js:220
- tools/clis/brevo.js:343 · tools/clis/postmark.js:350 — brevo.js:343
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Branch-heavy code is where defects cluster — extract decisions into smaller functions. (×8) — activecampaign.js:62, intercom.js:56, postmark.js:66, …
What to do
- Break down the listed branch-heavy functions; aim P95 cyclomatic ≤ 5.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files
What to do
- Split the oversized components into smaller, focused ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R4 · Test Coverage
- No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. (×8) — activecampaign.js, intercom.js, paddle.js, …
What to do
- Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling
- test ✗ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code
- 64 file(s) (~14594 LoC) were excluded from dead-code analysis — declare main/module/exports or a conventional entry (src/index.*, an index.html script) so reachability can see this package.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
R9 · Circular Imports
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 33% | Weak — gated by D1, D2, R1, R10, R2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 69% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Readiness | 17% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, R4, R6, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 71% | Strong | Strongest area. |
Not included — 63 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC3 Page structure — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No user-facing web UI (the repo is a library/CLI/worker/headless service) — accessibility is not applicable.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- 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.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Zero projects and zero LoC mean the codebase is trivial and has no structure to justify boundaries.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — No .NET solution found; no NuGet dependencies to scan for vulnerabilities.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
- 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.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 7 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/sync-skills.yml:18
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/sync-skills.yml:26
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/validate-skill.yml:25
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/validate-skill.yml:60
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/validate-skill.yml:63
D18 · Solution Shape
- Dimension evaluation failed
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 134 finding(s)
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 32) tools/clis/tiktok-ads.js:62
- main (cyclomatic 32) tools/clis/outreach.js:56
- main (cyclomatic 32) tools/clis/mention-me.js:55
- main (cyclomatic 32) tools/clis/linkedin-ads.js:56
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 20) tools/clis/zapier.js:71
- main (cyclomatic 20) tools/clis/google-search-console.js:65
- main (cyclomatic 20) tools/clis/google-ads.js:70
- main (cyclomatic 20) tools/clis/amplitude.js:79
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 31) tools/clis/meta-ads.js:61
- main (cyclomatic 31) tools/clis/g2.js:55
- main (cyclomatic 31) tools/clis/exa.js:75
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 29) tools/clis/segment.js:83
- main (cyclomatic 29) tools/clis/coupler.js:54
- main (cyclomatic 29) tools/clis/apollo.js:54
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 19) tools/clis/supermetrics.js:57
- main (cyclomatic 19) tools/clis/airops.js:62
- main (cyclomatic 19) tools/clis/adobe-analytics.js:59
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: tools/clis/rankparse.js tools/clis/rankparse.js
- Hotspot: tools/clis/exa.js tools/clis/exa.js
- Hotspot: tools/clis/github-prospects.js tools/clis/github-prospects.js
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 58) tools/clis/tiktok-ads.js:62
- main (cognitive 58) tools/clis/outreach.js:56
- main (cognitive 58) tools/clis/apollo.js:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 57) tools/clis/pendo.js:55
- main (cognitive 57) tools/clis/github-prospects.js:152
- main (cognitive 57) tools/clis/ga4.js:75
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 99) tools/clis/partnerstack.js:68
- main (cyclomatic 99) tools/clis/paddle.js:66
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 61) tools/clis/trustpilot.js:93
- main (cyclomatic 61) tools/clis/calendly.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 51) tools/clis/savvycal.js:55
- main (cyclomatic 51) tools/clis/optimizely.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 50) tools/clis/hunter.js:56
- main (cyclomatic 50) tools/clis/buffer.js:79
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 47) tools/clis/plausible.js:55
- main (cyclomatic 47) tools/clis/kit.js:82
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 45) tools/clis/sendgrid.js:54
- main (cyclomatic 45) tools/clis/lemlist.js:57
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 44) tools/clis/rankparse.js:65
- main (cyclomatic 44) tools/clis/customer-io.js:89
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 33) tools/clis/keywords-everywhere.js:56
- main (cyclomatic 33) tools/clis/ahrefs.js:53
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 25) tools/clis/tolt.js:54
- main (cyclomatic 25) tools/clis/crossbeam.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 210) tools/clis/intercom.js:56
- main (cognitive 210) tools/clis/brevo.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 141) tools/clis/typeform.js:55
- main (cognitive 141) tools/clis/beehiiv.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 100) tools/clis/trustpilot.js:93
- main (cognitive 100) tools/clis/buffer.js:79
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 83) tools/clis/zoominfo.js:83
- main (cognitive 83) tools/clis/sendgrid.js:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 75) tools/clis/lemlist.js:57
- main (cognitive 75) tools/clis/dub.js:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 65) tools/clis/segment.js:83
- main (cognitive 65) tools/clis/plausible.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 54) tools/clis/exa.js:75
- main (cognitive 54) tools/clis/coupler.js:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 51) tools/clis/rewardful.js:55
- main (cognitive 51) tools/clis/clay.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 47) tools/clis/meta-ads.js:61
- main (cognitive 47) tools/clis/linkedin-ads.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 38) tools/clis/semrush.js:70
- main (cognitive 38) tools/clis/demio.js:62
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 35) tools/clis/hotjar.js:74
- main (cognitive 35) tools/clis/adobe-analytics.js:59
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 116) tools/clis/activecampaign.js:62
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 115) tools/clis/intercom.js:56
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 111) tools/clis/postmark.js:66
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 107) tools/clis/resend.js:54
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 106) tools/clis/brevo.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 88) tools/clis/klaviyo.js:58
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 72) tools/clis/typeform.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 67) tools/clis/beehiiv.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 62) tools/clis/livestorm.js:56
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 58) tools/clis/wistia.js:58
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 57) tools/clis/similarweb.js:56
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 56) tools/clis/instantly.js:59
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 55) tools/clis/mailchimp.js:58
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 53) tools/clis/onesignal.js:62
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 48) tools/clis/close.js:56
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 43) tools/clis/dataforseo.js:57
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 42) tools/clis/github-prospects.js:152
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 41) tools/clis/snov.js:75
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 40) tools/clis/zoominfo.js:83
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 36) tools/clis/dub.js:54
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 35) tools/clis/mixpanel.js:111
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 34) tools/clis/pendo.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 30) tools/clis/clay.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 28) tools/clis/rewardful.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 27) tools/clis/ga4.js:75
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 24) tools/clis/clearbit.js:55
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 23) tools/clis/semrush.js:70
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 22) tools/clis/hotjar.js:74
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- api (cyclomatic 21) tools/clis/kit.js:12
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- main (cyclomatic 21) tools/clis/demio.js:62
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 224) tools/clis/postmark.js:66
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 215) tools/clis/activecampaign.js:62
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 193) tools/clis/partnerstack.js:68
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 183) tools/clis/klaviyo.js:58
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 180) tools/clis/paddle.js:66
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 168) tools/clis/resend.js:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 125) tools/clis/similarweb.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 121) tools/clis/mailchimp.js:58
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 118) tools/clis/calendly.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 110) tools/clis/instantly.js:59
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 103) tools/clis/livestorm.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 102) tools/clis/wistia.js:58
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 101) tools/clis/close.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 98) tools/clis/onesignal.js:62
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 97) tools/clis/hunter.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 95) tools/clis/kit.js:82
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 91) tools/clis/optimizely.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 90) tools/clis/savvycal.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 86) tools/clis/customer-io.js:89
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 71) tools/clis/mixpanel.js:111
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 69) tools/clis/snov.js:75
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 66) tools/clis/mention-me.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 63) tools/clis/ahrefs.js:53
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 60) tools/clis/dataforseo.js:57
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 49) tools/clis/g2.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 46) tools/clis/clearbit.js:55
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 45) tools/clis/keywords-everywhere.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 43) tools/clis/tolt.js:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 42) tools/clis/rankparse.js:65
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 39) tools/clis/amplitude.js:79
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 37) tools/clis/crossbeam.js:56
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 34) tools/clis/airops.js:62
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 33) tools/clis/zapier.js:71
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 28) tools/clis/supermetrics.js:57
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- api (cognitive 27) tools/clis/kit.js:12
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 26) tools/clis/google-search-console.js:65
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- main (cognitive 25) tools/clis/google-ads.js:70
Recommendation — 2 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 1 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 5 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet (no .NET solution) | — | dotnet (no .NET solution): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |