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.
dasiths/NEventLite carries serious gaps (43%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Domain Modelling (100%) — the domain model is expressive and well-guarded. Architecture (93%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Maturity (32%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Performance (44%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge… (Knowledge Freshness); Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); 'Testing' section to the root README (Documentation (README)).
For scale: Small (~2,304 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Domain Modelling foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
55%
Adequate · gated by X5
Architecture
93% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
32%
Weak · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
49%
Weak · gated by P3
Security
75%
Strong
Domain Modelling
100% ★
Exemplary
Performance
44%
Weak · gated by PF3
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 32% · 46% weightPerformance 44% · 25% weightReadiness 49% · 14% weightCode Health 55% · 8% weightSecurity 75% · 4% weightArchitecture 93% · 2% weightDomain Modelling 100% · 1% weight
Raise Maturity 32 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 43 → ~52.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 20%Plumbing 68%Tests 12%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €850–€4,200
| Cost to rebuild | €850–€4,200 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 43% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 44% boilerplate · 34% straight-line · 23% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€2,500 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 32% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
2
Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with NEventLite.csproj, NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp.csproj, NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory.csproj.
3
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).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 32%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
8.9
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
9.8
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
7.7
AX2 · Repo
Stateful singletons
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
The Good
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 20 | Medium |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 11 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by resolving the remaining orphaned files to improve knowledge freshness. Next, establish a centralized architecture documentation process by recording significant decisions in a dedicated directory. Simultaneously, update the root README to include a testing section and correct the inaccurate claim about Docker containerization. Finally, reorganize the project structure to group tests in a standard location, ensuring they are discoverable and compatible with CI pipelines.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +10.1 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with NEventLite.csproj, NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp.csproj, NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory.csproj. | +6.2 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| 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). | +10.1 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with ReflectionHelper.cs. | +4.6 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +8.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Group tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it. | +7.2 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists. | +7.2 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code. | +4.7 pts | Medium | Async & latency hygiene |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Common/Domain/Schedule/Schedule.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Schedule (LCOM4 4) |
| src/NEventLite/NEventLite.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite |
| src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp/NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp |
| src/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory |
| src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Common/NEventLite.Samples.Common.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Samples.Common |
| src/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.EventStore/NEventLite.StorageProviders.EventStore.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.StorageProviders.EventStore |
| src/Extensions/NEventLite.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection/NEventLite.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection |
| src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Autofac/NEventLite.Samples.Autofac.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Samples.Autofac |
| src/Extensions/NEventLite.Extensions.Autofac/NEventLite.Extensions.Autofac.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Extensions.Autofac |
| src/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory/InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs ↔ InMemorySnapshotStorageProvider.cs |
| legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html | 8.6 | Near-clean | Static Analysis (SAST): Low: plaintext-http-link |
| legacy/v1.0/README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The v1.0 README is a boilerplate "Note..." plus a brief requirements list with no real content and no outline sections named. |
| src/NEventLite/Util/ReflectionHelper.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
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. 46 of 49 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — 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 — 49 dimensions across the health lenses
D5D6D9D10D12D13D14D17D18D19D21D24D26D28D29D30D34D35AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8DM1DM4DM5DM6DM8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5
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, 32 of 52 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 | 10.0.302 | ✓ 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 |
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.
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
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and 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.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- 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
Dimensions
D5 · Coupling
9 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 11 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: Schedule (LCOM4 4)src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Common/Domain/Schedule/Schedule.cs:12
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with Schedule.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) 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
8 test methods: 0 unit, 8 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
What to do
- Improve Test Distribution — currently 8.5/10. — 8 test methods: 0 unit, 8 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 10 tests.
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?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 7 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 2304 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
9 projects, 63 source files, 2623 hand-written lines of code (2304 production / 319 test), 18 inter-project edges.
Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The NEventLite project has two README files covering the main topic but no architecture or design documentation. The first one (the current stable version) is a clear, well-structured overview with an excellent What-is-event-sourcing section and a strong v1.0 note that the second README is deprecated; it also links to a GitHub repo for further reading. The second README (v1.0) is mostly boilerplate ('Note: This version...') plus a brief requirements list, with no real content and no outline sections named, so its completeness cannot be confirmed from the visible text. Both are good but thin on concrete guidance.
Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite src/NEventLite/NEventLite.csproj
The v1.0 README is a boilerplate "Note..." plus a brief requirements list with no real content and no outline sections named.legacy/v1.0/README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 8 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with NEventLite.csproj, NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp.csproj, NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 The v1.0 README is a boilerplate "Note..." plus a brief requirements… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Inconsistent capitalization of 'Snapshot' in type names. 'IMockSnapShot' uses mixed case ('SnapShot') while all other storage providers and interfaces use 'Snapshot' (lowercase 's').
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
12 valuable / 1 redundant across 56 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commentsrc/NEventLite/Util/ReflectionHelper.cs:110
What to do
- Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with ReflectionHelper.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 9 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
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)
20 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 20 low.
Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:108
What to do
- Resolve the 20 Low finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with Project_Readme.html (20). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
11 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 4 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
What to do
- Resolve the 7 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 issue-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
19 of 19 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/NEventLite/Repository/MasterSession.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs↔InMemorySnapshotStorageProvider.cs 50%
Change coupling: InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs ↔ InMemorySnapshotStorageProvider.cssrc/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory/InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM5 · Encapsulated state
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
Do you agree with this assessment?
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
- `Handlers.CreateTodoHandler.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — CreateTodoHandler.cs:17
What to do
- Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `GetSnapshotAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — EventOnlyRepository.cs:22
- `SaveSnapshotAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — EventOnlyRepository.cs:27
What to do
- Remove the dead code that still moves this score: delete dead if(false) / #if false branches and either do the real async work or drop the async keyword from fake-async methods.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- 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 9 of 9 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- 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 structure
- Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- 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 gates
- A CI pipeline exists but no test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was found — changes may merge without the suite running.
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning
- 75/79 types (95%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
What to do
- Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- 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 Hygiene
- 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 discipline
- 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 hygiene
- No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this library sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it puts on its host — a bonus, not a requirement.
What to do
- On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
- 4 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
- Only 4/73 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
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.
- In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
- 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. (×3) — AggregateRoot.cs:83, Program.cs:23, Program.cs:15
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` wastes a thread and, if the task needs a context this one is holding, deadlocks. `Dispose()` returns void by contract, so it cannot simply `await`: signal the work to stop first (cancel its token, set its stop flag) so the wait is short, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task cannot hang shutdown, and — where callers can use it — add an awaitable teardown (`DisposeAsync`/`StopAsync`) beside the synchronous one and let `Dispose()` remain the bounded fallback. — EventStoreStorageConnectionProvider.cs:36
What to do
- Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 0/23 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. (×23) — AggregateRoot.cs:61, AggregateRoot.cs:87, AggregateRoot.cs:101, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/1 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
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 55% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 93% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 32% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 49% | Weak — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 75% | Strong | Solid. |
| Domain Modelling | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Performance | 44% | Weak — gated by PF3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 56 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- 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.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .js) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .cs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .js) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .js) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- 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 — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- 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.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D4 Code Duplication — Most of this repository's production source (.cs, .js) was not read by duplication detection, so code duplication was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's duplication. Not scored: no source of those file kinds was exposed to the token comparison by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (3 CQRS handler(s))
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (an event-store package (Marten/EventStore))
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- 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 — 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 — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- 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)
Issue — 7 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.2
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
Warning — 17 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite src/NEventLite/NEventLite.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp/NEventLite.Samples.ConsoleApp.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory src/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Samples.Common src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Common/NEventLite.Samples.Common.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.StorageProviders.EventStore src/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.EventStore/NEventLite.StorageProviders.EventStore.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection src/Extensions/NEventLite.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection/NEventLite.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Samples.Autofac src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Autofac/NEventLite.Samples.Autofac.csproj
- Low XML-doc coverage: NEventLite.Extensions.Autofac src/Extensions/NEventLite.Extensions.Autofac/NEventLite.Extensions.Autofac.csproj
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
D16 · Bus Factor
- dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
D18 · Solution Shape
- Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored
D35 · Change Coupling
- Change coupling: InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs ↔ InMemorySnapshotStorageProvider.cs src/Storage/NEventLite.StorageProviders.InMemory/InMemoryEventStorageProvider.cs
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: Schedule (LCOM4 4) src/Samples/NEventLite.Samples.Common/Domain/Schedule/Schedule.cs:12
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
Recommendation — 27 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:108
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:109
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:110
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:117
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:118
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:119
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:120
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:121
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:122
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:123
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:124
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:125
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:126
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:127
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:128
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:135
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:136
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:137
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:144
- Low: plaintext-http-link legacy/v1.0/src/Examples/NEventLite Example MVC/Project_Readme.html:145
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test runner surfaced no tests
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- complexity unreadable for .cs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The v1.0 README is a boilerplate "Note..." plus a brief requirements list with no real content and no outline sections named. legacy/v1.0/README.md
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent capitalization of 'Snapshot' in type names. 'IMockSnapShot' uses mixed case ('SnapShot') while all other storage providers and interfaces use 'Snapshot' (lowercase 's').
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/NEventLite/Util/ReflectionHelper.cs:110
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
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 . | 20 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list src/NEventLite.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 11 | 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 — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| 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 | — |