Runtime engine for the Dolittle event-driven platform
Public report — Runtime, published 20 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 20-06-2026 @ 20:25 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Dolittle/Runtime

34% Weak
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
middle

Medium · 44,132 LoC · 53 projects · rebuild ~0.3 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (17%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

65/69dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
221findings with an exact file:lineof 510 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
69/103dimensions across the health lenses44132 LoC · 53 projects — wide & deep

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.

dolittle/Runtime carries serious risk (34%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

It is strongest in Architecture (93%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (17%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Security (35%) is the next concern — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through… (Test Coverage); Make types internal by default (Library API & versioning).

For scale: Medium (~44,132 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (93%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

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% · 46% weightSecurity 35% · 25% weightCode Health 54% · 14% weightPerformance 61% · 8% weightMaturity 61% · 4% weightArchitecture 93% · 2% weight

Raise Readiness 17 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 34 → ~48.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 12%Plumbing 55%Tests 33%
New since the last scan (2+)

2 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-20) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Shared Integration/Shared/Shared.csproj ↻ reappeared after being resolved
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: Diagnostics Source/Diagnostics/Diagnostics.csproj ↻ reappeared after being resolved

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €17,000–€81,000
Cost to rebuild€17,000–€81,000 (0.2–0.5 person-years (275–849 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityLow — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 34% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · 61% boilerplate · 21% straight-line · 18% branching logic
Dead frontend code~894 LoC unreachable (15 file(s)) — that slice of this estimate buys code with zero runtime value; deleting it is the cheapest win in this report (the R7 card lists every file)

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€49,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 17% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Low (×0.9) — service/app, transaction-script/CRUD × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+10.9 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
2
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
+10.9 pts · Low effort · Dependency Hygiene
3
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
+15.8 pts · Medium effort · DR & Backup

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 17%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (44,132 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 17%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+3.6 pts/run over 9 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +3.6 pts/run over 9 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 34 ▲ 1 over 9 runs.

025507510019 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityPerformance

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

arch Artifacts Artifacts Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Rudimentary) Artifacts->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Bootstrap Bootstrap DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) DependencyInversion) Bootstrap->DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) Diagnostics Diagnostics Bootstrap->Diagnostics Tenancy Tenancy Bootstrap->Tenancy CLI CLI Events (Source/Events) Events) CLI->Events (Source/Events) Microservices Microservices CLI->Microservices CLI->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Services.Clients (Source/Services.Clients) Clients) CLI->Services.Clients (Source/Services.Clients) Configuration Configuration Configuration->DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) Configuration->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Domain (Source/Domain) Domain) DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion)->Domain (Source/Domain) Diagnostics->Configuration Domain (Source/Domain)->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon) EventHorizon) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Events (Source/Events) Execution (Source/Execution) Execution) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Execution (Source/Execution) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Microservices Protobuf (Source/Protobuf) Protobuf) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Protobuf (Source/Protobuf) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Services (Source/Services) Services) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Services (Source/Services) EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon)->Services.Clients (Source/Services.Clients) Events (Source/Events)->Artifacts Events (Source/Events)->Bootstrap Events (Source/Events)->DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) Events (Source/Events)->Execution (Source/Execution) Events (Source/Events)->Protobuf (Source/Protobuf) Events (Source/Events)->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Events (Source/Events)->Services (Source/Services) Events (Source/Events)->Tenancy Events.Store.MongoDB (Source/Events.Store.MongoDB) MongoDB) Events.Store.MongoDB (Source/Events.Store.MongoDB)->Artifacts Events.Store.MongoDB (Source/Events.Store.MongoDB)->Diagnostics Events.Store.MongoDB (Source/Events.Store.MongoDB)->EventHorizon (Source/EventHorizon) Events.Store.MongoDB (Source/Events.Store.MongoDB)->Events (Source/Events) Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc) Grpc) Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc)->Artifacts Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc)->Events (Source/Events) Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc)->Protobuf (Source/Protobuf) Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc)->Services (Source/Services) Execution (Source/Execution)->Configuration Execution (Source/Execution)->DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) Execution (Source/Execution)->Domain (Source/Domain) Metrics (Source/Metrics) Metrics) Metrics (Source/Metrics)->Configuration Metrics (Source/Metrics)->Diagnostics Microservices->Configuration Microservices->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Microservices->Services (Source/Services) Platform (Source/Platform) Platform) Platform (Source/Platform)->Configuration Platform (Source/Platform)->Diagnostics Platform (Source/Platform)->Domain (Source/Domain) Platform (Source/Platform)->Services (Source/Services) Protobuf (Source/Protobuf)->Artifacts Protobuf (Source/Protobuf)->Execution (Source/Execution) Protobuf (Source/Protobuf)->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Services (Source/Services)->Configuration Services (Source/Services)->Metrics (Source/Metrics) Services (Source/Services)->Protobuf (Source/Protobuf) Services (Source/Services)->Rudimentary (Source/Rudimentary) Services.Clients (Source/Services.Clients)->DependencyInversion (Source/DependencyInversion) Services.Clients (Source/Services.Clients)->Metrics (Source/Metrics) Services.Clients (Source/Services.Clients)->Services (Source/Services) Tenancy->Configuration Tenancy->Execution (Source/Execution) Tenancy->Services (Source/Services) __more__ +29 more projects

At a glance — Code Health · 54% · Adequate · gated by R7

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 61% · Adequate · gated by M2

At a glance — Readiness · 17% · Critical · gated by R4, R6, R8, P3, P5, P10, P9

At a glance — Security · 35% · Weak · gated by D36, C2

At a glance — Performance · 61% · Adequate

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration6High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components5High / Critical

Roadmap

First, establish a robust disaster recovery plan by codifying backups and geo-recovery in infrastructure as code, ensuring clear recovery time and objectives are documented. Next, improve software reliability by adding tests for all production modules, with a specific focus on domain logic where correctness is critical. Then, tighten the public API by making types internal by default to prevent breaking changes. Finally, clean up the codebase by removing unused dependencies and ensuring all imports are explicitly declared.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+10.9 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+10.9 ptsLowDependency Hygiene
Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.+15.8 ptsMediumDR & Backup
Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).+15.8 ptsMediumTest Coverage
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.+15.7 ptsMediumLibrary API & versioning
Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.+15.6 ptsMediumDomain vs controller coverage
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.+15.3 ptsMediumDependency Hygiene
Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.+15.2 ptsMediumTooling

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 74 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 34% mixed · 66% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Source/Events/Processing/Streams/AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs6.0MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/FastEventHandlerWithImplicitFilter.cs6.4MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/FastEventHandler.cs6.5MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Docker/Development/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Docker/Production/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Development/MongoDB/Dockerfile6.5MixedIaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002
Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/EventHandlerClient.cs6.5MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/EventHorizon/Consumer/Processing/EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Hosting/Scopes/ScopedHostBuilder.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Events/Store/Actors/EventStore.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/Filter.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/with_a_single/scoped/not_partitioned/event_handler/without_implicit_filter/that_handles_no_event_types.cs6.9MixedExplicit Debt: CommentedOutCode
Source/DependencyInversion/Tenancy/GeneratedTenantFactoryRegistrationSource.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Services/HealthChecks/HealthService.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Services.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Services.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Events/Store/Persistence/CommitBuilder.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/Configuration/AllConfigurations.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 65 of 69 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

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

What we checked — 69 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D33D36D38D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P5P6P7P9PF1PF2PF3R1R10R2R3R4R6R7R8R9S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. 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, 221 of 510 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. 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.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee6b5-5b5c-7513-8d27-e98322d52270.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • 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.
  • 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.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (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.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • 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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
  • P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D21, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction at 18.

ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction (cyclomatic 18)Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.cs:306
exports (cyclomatic 18).vscode/resolveProject.js:4

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D2 · Cognitive Complexity8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ReverseCallDispatcher.HandleClientMessages at 31.

ReverseCallDispatcher.HandleClientMessages (cognitive 31)Source/Services/ReverseCallDispatcher.cs:253
AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.BeginProcessing (cognitive 29)Source/Events/Processing/Streams/AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.cs:321
V6EventSourceMigrator.ConvertUuidFieldsToStringAsync (cognitive 25)Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Migrations/V6EventSourceMigrator.cs:65
exports (cognitive 24).vscode/resolveProject.js:4
FailingPartitions.ProcessPartition (cognitive 21)Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Partitioned/FailingPartitions.cs:87

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

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 ReverseCallDispatcher.HandleClientMessages (cognitive 31) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ReverseCallDispatcher.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.BeginProcessing (cognitive 29) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 V6EventSourceMigrator.ConvertUuidFieldsToStringAsync (cognitive 25) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with V6EventSourceMigrator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  4. Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

4 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×2Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.cs:387
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2)Source/CLI/Runtime/Aggregates/ManagementClient.cs:120
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)Source/Events/Processing/Filters/EventHorizon/PublicFilterProcessor.cs:76

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling7.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 7.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

35 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 1 unstable depended-on project(s).

Off the main sequence: MongoDB · ×10
Unstable project Shared

What to do

  1. Resolve the 10 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Unstable project Shared finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

15 of 170 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 19) · ×15Source/Services.Clients/MetricsCollector.cs:16

What to do

  1. Resolve the 15 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with MetricsCollector.cs (8), ActorEventHandler.cs, EventHandlersProtocol.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

116 test methods: 107 unit, 9 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 116 tests.

Mock framework: Moq

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); other: not included — too large to re-run within its budget.

Tier not included (time budget)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene4.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 4.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

245 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 2 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Api · ×2
Deprecated: xunit · ×2
Outdated: Autofac · ×245

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 53 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

80 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 44015 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.3.

EmptyCatchBlock · ×2Source/Services.Clients/ReverseCallClient.cs:402
TodoComment · ×49Source/DependencyInversion/Tenancy/GeneratedTenantFactoryRegistrationSource.cs:45
CommentedOutCode · ×25Specifications/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/for_EventHandler/when_disposing/and_it_fails_registering_filter_processor.cs:4
ObsoleteWithCallers · ×2Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Partitioned/FailingPartitionState.cs:27
BarePragmaDisable · ×2Source/Configuration/AllConfigurations.cs:19

+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D18 · Solution Shape9.4 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

53 projects, 1613 .cs files, 66048 hand-written lines of code (44015 production / 22033 test), 467 inter-project edges.

Shell project: DependencyInversion · ×3Specifications/DependencyInversion/DependencyInversion.csproj
Events.Store.MongoDB (Production) · ×3Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Events.Store.MongoDB.csproj
Services (Production) · ×3Source/Services/Services.csproj
DependencyInversion (Production) · ×2Source/DependencyInversion/DependencyInversion.csproj
EventHorizon (Production) · ×2Source/EventHorizon/EventHorizon.csproj

+ 31 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Adequate / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The project features a high-quality main README with clear value proposition, badges, and Docker instructions. However, several other README files are critically underdeveloped, containing only single sentences or empty placeholders. While XML documentation coverage is generally strong, there are significant gaps in specific modules like 'Diagnostics' and 'Shared', indicating inconsistent internal documentation practices.

Low XML-doc coverage: Shared · ×2Integration/Shared/Shared.csproj
XML-doc coverage: Artifacts · ×28Source/Artifacts/Artifacts.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Diagnostics.csproj, Shared.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.

redundant commentIntegration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with EventHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 53 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split Events

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D27 · Navigability8.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

76 % of calls cross a namespace and 18 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.2/10. — 76 % of calls cross a namespace and 18 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities8.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

5 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 4 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.12.0 · ×4detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).

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

D31 · IaC & Container Security8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

6 finding(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 3 low.

High IaC: DS-0002 · ×3Docker/Development/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026 · ×3Docker/Development/Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 3 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether JavaScript/npm dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) — the npm ecosystem's biggest risk.

Method: JS/npm CVE scan via trivy fs --scanners vuln over JS manifests (package.json/yarn.lock/pnpm-lock/bun.lockb); 0-10 tight normalizer. NotApplicable without JS manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — npm and other lockfile ecosystems, parsed natively. Complements D33 (npm via trivy) and D30 (.NET via dotnet).

Method: npm/multi-ecosystem CVE scan via osv-scanner (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively: package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable without a JS lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable dependencies (OSV).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md.

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 204 methods have an oversized IL body.

IL measured

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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

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

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

AX10 · Code composition8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • `IMetricsCollector` declares 20 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IMetricsCollector.cs:11

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

C2 · Access Controls0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

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

  • No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.

What to do

  • Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×8) — EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:52, EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:56, EventStore.cs:211, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • `FetchSingle` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:51
  • `FetchLast` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:55
  • `GetNextStreamPosition` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:59
  • `OnReset` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — EventLogStream.cs:133
  • `Commit` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventStore.cs:211
  • `CommitForAggregate` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventStore.cs:212
  • `RegisterSubscription` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventStore.cs:213
  • `CancelSubscription` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — EventStore.cs:214
  • `OnStarted` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — StreamProcessorStateManager.cs:56
  • `GetByProcessorId` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — StreamProcessorStateManager.cs:328
  • `GetBySubscriptionId` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — StreamSubscriptionStateManager.cs:292
  • `CreateMessageBatchesOfSize` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — BatchMessagesExtensions.cs:27
  • `BatchReduceMessagesOfSize` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — BatchMessagesExtensions.cs:70
  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×17) — Program.cs:53, EventsToStreamsWriter.cs:68, ActorPropsAdder.cs:23, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a '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 53 of 53 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 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 test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
M4 · Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

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

P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 947/1023 types (93%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
  • No <Version>/<VersionPrefix>/GitVersion/MinVer detected. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
  • Stamp a semantic version (csproj <Version> or GitVersion/MinVer) and follow semver for breaking changes.
P2 · Observability8.8 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 15/25 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).

What to do

  • Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
P3 · Security & performance tooling1.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 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.
  • Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

  • A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

  • Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Stamp a version (csproj <Version>, a VERSION file, or GitVersion) or tag releases with semver so builds and releases are traceable.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

P9 · Domain vs controller coverage2.3 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether test coverage concentrates on the domain (business rules) rather than the trivial web/controller layer — a focus check a generic tool can't make.

Method: Roslyn plus test-execution analysis: domain-layer versus trivial web/controller coverage ratio. Computed metric, deterministic.

  • Domain coverage is 15% — the layer carrying the business rules is under-tested.

What to do

  • Raise unit-test coverage of the domain (aggregates, value objects, domain services) — that's where correctness matters most.
PF1 · Benchmark discipline9.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • A BenchmarkDotNet suite exists but no [MemoryDiagnoser] — allocations (the main way a library pressures its host's GC) aren't being measured.

What to do

  • Add [MemoryDiagnoser] to the benchmarks so allocation regressions are visible, not just time.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.1 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

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

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 14 use(s) across 51,468 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 13 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
  • Only 385/607 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.
R1 · Type Safety8.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication5.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).

Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.

  • Source/ManagementUI/features/navigation.ts:19 · Source/ManagementUI/features/navigation.ts:71 — navigation.ts:19
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/connections/heads.ts:48 · Source/ManagementUI/features/general/logs.ts:96 — heads.ts:48
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/navigation.ts:53 · Source/ManagementUI/features/navigation.ts:88 — navigation.ts:53
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/connections/heads.ts:21 · Source/ManagementUI/features/general/logs.ts:92 — heads.ts:21
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/components/doughnut-chart/doughnut-chart.ts:13 · Source/ManagementUI/features/components/line-chart/line-chart.ts:13 — doughnut-chart.ts:13
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/connections/heads.ts:70 · Source/ManagementUI/features/general/logs.ts:115 — heads.ts:70
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/resources/index.ts:43 · Source/ManagementUI/features/resources/index.ts:51 · Source/ManagementUI/features/resources/index.ts:60 · Source/ManagementUI/features/resources/index.ts:69 — index.ts:43
  • Source/ManagementUI/features/app.ts:47 · Source/ManagementUI/features/connections/heads.ts:81 — app.ts:47

What to do

  • Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

  • No test imports this module directly or transitively — its behavior is unverified. (×8) — logs.ts, heads.ts, navigation.ts, …

What to do

  • Add tests that import the unreached modules (directly or through their public entry).
R6 · Tooling3.4 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • test ✓ · lint ✗ · typecheck ✗

What to do

  • Add the missing tooling (eslint, tsc) as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 2 file(s) (~20 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.
  • Unreachable from the 0 application, 3 tooling and 0 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
  • no import path from any entry point (0 application, 3 tooling, 0 test roots considered) (×6) — logs.ts, heads.ts, navigation.ts, …

What to do

  • Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
R8 · Dependency Hygiene3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. (×2) — wallaby.js:5, wallaby.js:8
  • Declared in Source/ManagementUI/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)

What to do

  • Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

S1 · Web-Security Posture4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness7.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×11) — ReverseCallStreamWriter.cs:153, ReverseCallStreamWriter.cs:186, ActorEventHandler.cs:191, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 168/286 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — ExternalEventsCommitter.cs:44, EventHorizon.cs:90, EventHorizon.cs:133, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling7.6 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. (×2) — ReverseCallClient.cs:402, ReverseCallStreamWriter.cs:103

What to do

  • Swallowed exception (empty catch)
X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X5 · Nullable reference types9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • ~0.5 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.

What to do

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health54%Adequate — gated by R7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture93%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity61%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness17%Critical — gated by R4, R6, R8, P3, P5, P10, P9Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security35%Weak — gated by D36, C2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Performance61%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Not included — 35 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No 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.
  • AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
  • D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — broken report
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 16 value object(s); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not run — only 1/3 markers (1 event handler(s))
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events))
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
  • 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)
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 8 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security · High IaC · ×3
  • High IaC: DS-0002 Docker/Development/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 Docker/Production/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
  • High IaC: DS-0002 Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Development/MongoDB/Dockerfile — Image user should not be 'root'
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×2
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Api — OpenTelemetry.Api 1.12.0 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.12.0 — Moderate severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · EmptyCatchBlock · ×2
  • EmptyCatchBlock Source/Services.Clients/ReverseCallClient.cs:402 — empty catch block
  • EmptyCatchBlock Source/Services/ReverseCalls/ReverseCallStreamWriter.cs:103 — empty catch block
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×1
  • High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0 — Snappier 1.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 39 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 130 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×49
  • TodoComment Source/DependencyInversion/Tenancy/GeneratedTenantFactoryRegistrationSource.cs:45 — //TODO: Null check? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/DependencyInversion/Tenancy/GeneratedTenantFactoryRegistrationSource.cs:75 — //TODO: This should work, but I'm not 100% sure — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventHorizon/Consumer/Processing/EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:39 — //TODO: This can be improved by taking as many as possible instead of just the first — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/EventHorizon/EventsToPublicStreamsWriter.cs:19 — // TODO: This gets resolved for private filters as well — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Persistence/CommitWriter.cs:85 — //TODO: Notifying for events should be a concern handled by actors — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Services.cs:14 — // TODO: Is bindings maybe a better word for these things? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Metrics/Configuration/MetricsServerConfiguration.cs:17 — // TODO: It would be cool if this made it so that the scoped server host didn't start — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Metrics/DependencyInversion/Services.cs:17 — // TODO: It would be nice if we could automatically force these interfaces to also to be singletons? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Metrics/MetricsAttribute.cs:14 — // TODO: This attribute could have an argument to set prefixes for all metrics, so we can shorten some of the code in the other places in the runtime — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Server/Web/HostBuilderExtensions.cs:34 — // TODO: Fix JSON serializer so that Web APIs don't need copies of types — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Server/Web/WebServerConfiguration.cs:17 — // TODO: It would be cool if this made it so that the scoped server host didn't start — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Services.Clients/Channels.cs:17 — //TODO: This should create one channel per address and keep it alive. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Services/HealthChecks/HealthService.cs:17 — // TODO: Perhaps we need to do something clever here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Services/HealthChecks/HealthService.cs:24 — // TODO: I don't think we care - but there is also a Watch that we can implement — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Aggregates/Management/GetTenantScopedAggregateRoot.cs:35 — // TODO: Instead of this "perform for all tenants" + "func<TenantId, something>" pattern, we should really make a thing to to this with types — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Services.cs:9 — // // TODO: Is bindings maybe a better word for these things? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Services.cs:14 — // // TODO: Maybe we want to make an interface for these? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Filters/Services.cs:11 — // TODO: Is bindings maybe a better word for these things? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Filters/TypeFilterWithEventSourcePartition.cs:32 — // TODO: Just regular logger? Probably some factories we can get rid of here — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Streams/AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.cs:243 — // TODO: Shouldn't this policy rather be used in the actual fetcher? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Streams/AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.cs:318 — // TODO: Does this make sense? Do we want more, or less? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Streams/EventFetcherPolicies.cs:33 — // TODO: Now we might be able to check for failures on try as well? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Services.cs:10 — // TODO: Is bindings maybe a better word for these things? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Services.cs:15 — // TODO: Maybe we want to make an interface for these? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/Events/Processing/Streams/StreamProcessors.cs:63 — // TODO: Logging — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • + 24 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · CommentedOutCode · ×25
  • CommentedOutCode Specifications/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/for_EventHandler/when_disposing/and_it_fails_registering_filter_processor.cs:4 — 9 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Specifications/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/for_EventHandler/when_disposing/and_it_is_given_a_non_writeable_stream.cs:4 — 10 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Specifications/Events.Processing/Filters/for_FilterValidators/when_validating/and_definition_has_changed_but_filter_has_not_processed_any_events.cs:4 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/ActorPropsAdder.cs:23 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/EventHandlerClient.cs:4 — 9 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/EventHandlerClient.cs:24 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/EventHandlerClient.cs:33 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/EventHandlerClient.cs:40 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/EventHandlerClient.cs:51 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:4 — 17 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:80 — 14 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:139 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:149 — 5 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:182 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:292 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:332 — 6 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Source/Events/Store/Streams/Legacy/Extensions.cs:4 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/FastEventHandler.cs:97 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/FastEventHandlerWithImplicitFilter.cs:97 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/given/single_tenant_and_event_handlers.cs:336 — 11 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/given/single_tenant_and_event_handlers.cs:348 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/with_a_single/scoped/not_partitioned/event_handler/without_implicit_filter/that_handles_no_event_types.cs:4 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/with_a_single/scoped/not_partitioned/event_handler/without_implicit_filter/that_handles_no_event_types.cs:21 — 4 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/with_a_single/scoped/not_partitioned/event_handler/without_implicit_filter/that_handles_no_event_types.cs:26 — 3 consecutive commented-code lines
  • CommentedOutCode Specifications/Events.Processing.Tests/PartitionedProcessorTests.cs:1 — 7 consecutive commented-code lines
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×15
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 19) Source/Services.Clients/MetricsCollector.cs:16 — MetricsCollector's methods form 19 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: EventHandlersProtocol (LCOM4 13) Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandlersProtocol.cs:17 — EventHandlersProtocol's methods form 13 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher (LCOM4 12) Source/EventHorizon/Consumer/Processing/EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher.cs:18 — EventsFromEventHorizonFetcher's methods form 12 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 12) Source/Services/ReverseCalls/MetricsCollector.cs:16 — MetricsCollector's methods form 12 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 10) Source/Events/Store/Actors/MetricsCollector.cs:26 — MetricsCollector's methods form 10 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 9) Source/EventHorizon/Consumer/Connections/MetricsCollector.cs:16 — MetricsCollector's methods form 9 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 8) Source/EventHorizon/Consumer/MetricsCollector.cs:15 — MetricsCollector's methods form 8 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 8) Source/Services/Callbacks/MetricsCollector.cs:16 — MetricsCollector's methods form 8 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: ScopedHostBuilder (LCOM4 6) Source/Hosting/Scopes/ScopedHostBuilder.cs:19 — ScopedHostBuilder's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 5) Source/EventHorizon/Consumer/Processing/MetricsCollector.cs:15 — MetricsCollector's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: ActorEventHandler (LCOM4 5) Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ActorEventHandler.cs:36 — ActorEventHandler's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: EventStore (LCOM4 5) Source/Events/Store/Actors/EventStore.cs:23 — EventStore's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: MetricsCollector (LCOM4 4) Source/EventHorizon/Producer/MetricsCollector.cs:15 — MetricsCollector's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: StreamProcessorStateRepository (LCOM4 4) Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Processing/Streams/StreamProcessorStateRepository.cs:18 — StreamProcessorStateRepository's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: EventsToStreamsWriter (LCOM4 4) Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Streams/EventsToStreamsWriter.cs:25 — EventsToStreamsWriter's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×10
  • Off the main sequence: MongoDB — MongoDB: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Artifacts — Artifacts: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.04, distance 0.96 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Domain — Domain: abstractness 0.06, instability 0.03, distance 0.91 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Diagnostics — Diagnostics: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.14, distance 0.86 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Metrics — Metrics: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.21, distance 0.79 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Protobuf — Protobuf: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.21, distance 0.79 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DependencyInversion — DependencyInversion: abstractness 0.16, instability 0.06, distance 0.77 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Rudimentary — Rudimentary: abstractness 0.24, instability 0.00, distance 0.76 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Configuration — Configuration: abstractness 0.15, instability 0.10, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: Hosting — Hosting: abstractness 0.13, instability 0.14, distance 0.73 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×4
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.12.0 — OpenTelemetry.Api 1.12.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 37 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.12.0 — OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.12.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 37 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1 — SharpCompress 0.30.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 39 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.9.0 — OpenTelemetry.Api 1.9.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×2
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.9.3 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×2
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Partitioned/FailingPartitionState.cs:27 — [Obsolete] .ctor
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Partitioned/StreamProcessorState.cs:30 — [Obsolete] .ctor
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×2
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/Configuration/AllConfigurations.cs:19 — #pragma warning disable CS8618
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/Diagnostics/OpenTelemetry/OpenTelemetryConfigurationExtensions.cs:33 — #pragma warning disable CA1848
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×2
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Shared Integration/Shared/Shared.csproj — Shared: 18 % XML-doc coverage (4/22).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Diagnostics Source/Diagnostics/Diagnostics.csproj — Diagnostics: 6 % XML-doc coverage (1/16).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.cs:387 — Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.cs:387-400 | Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/PartitionedProcessor.cs:223-238
  • Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Source/Events/Store/Actors/StreamProcessorStateManager.cs:269 — Source/Events/Store/Actors/StreamProcessorStateManager.cs:269-284 | Source/Events/Store/Actors/StreamSubscriptionStateManager.cs:229-244
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction (cyclomatic 18) Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.cs:306 — ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · exports (cyclomatic 18) · ×1
  • exports (cyclomatic 18) .vscode/resolveProject.js:4 — exports has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1
  • single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (0 author(s) across 0 commit(s) sampled).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ReverseCallDispatcher.HandleClientMessages (cognitive 31) · ×1
  • ReverseCallDispatcher.HandleClientMessages (cognitive 31) Source/Services/ReverseCallDispatcher.cs:253 — ReverseCallDispatcher.HandleClientMessages has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.BeginProcessing (cognitive 29) · ×1
  • AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.BeginProcessing (cognitive 29) Source/Events/Processing/Streams/AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.cs:321 — AbstractScopedStreamProcessor.BeginProcessing has cognitive complexity 29 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · V6EventSourceMigrator.ConvertUuidFieldsToStringAsync (cognitive 25) · ×1
  • V6EventSourceMigrator.ConvertUuidFieldsToStringAsync (cognitive 25) Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Migrations/V6EventSourceMigrator.cs:65 — V6EventSourceMigrator.ConvertUuidFieldsToStringAsync has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · exports (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • exports (cognitive 24) .vscode/resolveProject.js:4 — exports has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · FailingPartitions.ProcessPartition (cognitive 21) · ×1
  • FailingPartitions.ProcessPartition (cognitive 21) Source/Events/Processing/Streams/Partitioned/FailingPartitions.cs:87 — FailingPartitions.ProcessPartition has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · DolittleConfiguration.RemoveEmptyChildren (cognitive 19) · ×1
  • DolittleConfiguration.RemoveEmptyChildren (cognitive 19) Source/Configuration.Management/DolittleConfiguration.cs:109 — DolittleConfiguration.RemoveEmptyChildren has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction (cognitive 18) · ×1
  • ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction (cognitive 18) Source/Events/Processing/EventHandlers/Actors/ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.cs:306 — ConcurrentPartitionedProcessor.WaitForNextAction has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ConfigurationParser.WriteSectionToStream (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ConfigurationParser.WriteSectionToStream (cognitive 17) Source/Configuration/Parsing/ConfigurationParser.cs:52 — ConfigurationParser.WriteSectionToStream has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · CallbackScheduler.CallbackLoop (cognitive 16) · ×1
  • CallbackScheduler.CallbackLoop (cognitive 16) Source/Services/Callbacks/CallbackScheduler.cs:62 — CallbackScheduler.CallbackLoop has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Source/CLI/Runtime/Aggregates/ManagementClient.cs:120 — Source/CLI/Runtime/Aggregates/ManagementClient.cs:120-128 | Source/Events/Store/CommittedAggregateEventsExtensions.cs:46-54
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Source/Events/Processing/Filters/EventHorizon/PublicFilterProcessor.cs:76 — Source/Events/Processing/Filters/EventHorizon/PublicFilterProcessor.cs:76-83 | Source/Events/Processing/Filters/Partitioned/FilterProcessor.cs:70-76
D5 · Coupling · Unstable project Shared · ×1
  • Unstable project Shared — Shared has instability 0.82 with 6 dependents.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — broken report — The coverage report is internally inconsistent or empty/placeholder (e.g. near-zero line coverage alongside positive branch coverage), so line coverage was not really measured — it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect. Re-run with a working collector, or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces.
Recommendation — 20 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape · Shell project · ×3
  • Shell project: DependencyInversion Specifications/DependencyInversion/DependencyInversion.csproj — `DependencyInversion` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Metrics Specifications/Metrics/Metrics.csproj — `Metrics` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
  • Shell project: Events Specifications/Events/Events.csproj — `Events` contributes only 3 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×3
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 Docker/Development/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 Docker/Production/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
  • Low IaC: DS-0026 Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Development/MongoDB/Dockerfile — No HEALTHCHECK defined
D11 · Test Reliability · Tier not included (time budget) · ×1
  • Tier not included (time budget) — other: not included — too large to re-run within its budget
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · single-commit history · ×1
  • single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots — single-commit history — no usable git history window to measure hotspots: a single-commit clone exposes no history window, so the churn × complexity hotspot signal is unavailable — not scored for this run.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — The codebase is large (44k+ LoC, 53 projects), indicating a complex, multi-module system where implicit boundaries should be explicitly defined to manage coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×1
  • redundant comment Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/EventHandler.cs:1 — "// Copyright (c) Dolittle. All rights reserved." — Remove this comment. It is a legal header, not a code comment explaining logic. It should be in a separate header file or build configuration, not inline.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split Events · ×1
  • Split Events — The project is large and spans 26 namespaces, indicating a lack of cohesion and multiple distinct responsibilities. Suggested: by namespace groups: e.g., Core, Handlers, Models, Utilities
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · early-stage repository · ×1
  • early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness (0 commit(s) sampled).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • 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.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 352 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×245
  • Outdated: Autofac — Autofac 8.1.1 → 9.3.0 available.
  • Outdated: Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Autofac.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.0 → 11.0.1 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting.Abstractions 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options — Microsoft.Extensions.Options 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: MongoDB.Driver — MongoDB.Driver 2.30.0 → 3.9.0 available.
  • Outdated: MongoDB.Driver.Core.Extensions.DiagnosticSources — MongoDB.Driver.Core.Extensions.DiagnosticSources 1.5.0 → 3.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Google.Protobuf — Google.Protobuf 3.31.1 → 3.35.1 available.
  • Outdated: Google.Protobuf — Google.Protobuf 3.31.1 → 3.35.1 available.
  • Outdated: System.Linq.Async — System.Linq.Async 6.0.3 → 7.0.1 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting — Microsoft.Extensions.Hosting 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console 9.0.8 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Proto.Actor — Proto.Actor 1.7.1-alpha.0.1 → 1.8.0 available.
  • Outdated: Proto.Cluster — Proto.Cluster 1.7.1-alpha.0.1 → 1.8.0 available.
  • Outdated: Proto.Cluster.CodeGen — Proto.Cluster.CodeGen 1.7.1-alpha.0.1 → 1.8.0 available.
  • Outdated: Proto.Remote — Proto.Remote 1.7.1-alpha.0.1 → 1.8.0 available.
  • Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore — Swashbuckle.AspNetCore 7.3.1 → 10.2.2 available.
  • Outdated: Google.Protobuf — Google.Protobuf 3.31.1 → 3.35.1 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.Net.Client — Grpc.Net.Client 2.71.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • Outdated: Google.Protobuf — Google.Protobuf 3.31.1 → 3.35.1 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.AspNetCore — Grpc.AspNetCore 2.71.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.AspNetCore.HealthChecks — Grpc.AspNetCore.HealthChecks 2.71.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • Outdated: Grpc.AspNetCore.Server.Reflection — Grpc.AspNetCore.Server.Reflection 2.71.0 → 2.80.0 available.
  • + 220 more in this group — see findings.md.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×28
  • XML-doc coverage: Artifacts Source/Artifacts/Artifacts.csproj — Artifacts: 100 % XML-doc coverage (11/11).
  • XML-doc coverage: DependencyInversion Source/DependencyInversion/DependencyInversion.csproj — DependencyInversion: 96 % XML-doc coverage (85/89).
  • XML-doc coverage: EventHorizon Source/EventHorizon/EventHorizon.csproj — EventHorizon: 95 % XML-doc coverage (194/205).
  • XML-doc coverage: Events.Store.MongoDB Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Events.Store.MongoDB.csproj — Events.Store.MongoDB: 79 % XML-doc coverage (314/397).
  • XML-doc coverage: Events.Store.Services.Grpc Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc/Events.Store.Services.Grpc.csproj — Events.Store.Services.Grpc: 100 % XML-doc coverage (6/6).
  • XML-doc coverage: Events.Store.Services.WebAPI Source/Events.Store.Services.WebAPI/Events.Store.Services.WebAPI.csproj — Events.Store.Services.WebAPI: 92 % XML-doc coverage (36/39).
  • XML-doc coverage: Execution Source/Execution/Execution.csproj — Execution: 100 % XML-doc coverage (20/20).
  • XML-doc coverage: Metrics Source/Metrics/Metrics.csproj — Metrics: 60 % XML-doc coverage (15/25).
  • XML-doc coverage: Microservices Source/Microservices/Microservices.csproj — Microservices: 71 % XML-doc coverage (5/7).
  • XML-doc coverage: Protobuf Source/Protobuf/Protobuf.csproj — Protobuf: 100 % XML-doc coverage (38/38).
  • XML-doc coverage: Rudimentary Source/Rudimentary/Rudimentary.csproj — Rudimentary: 97 % XML-doc coverage (114/118).
  • XML-doc coverage: Server Source/Server/Server.csproj — Server: 77 % XML-doc coverage (17/22).
  • XML-doc coverage: Services.Clients Source/Services.Clients/Services.Clients.csproj — Services.Clients: 98 % XML-doc coverage (59/60).
  • XML-doc coverage: Services Source/Services/Services.csproj — Services: 76 % XML-doc coverage (187/245).
  • XML-doc coverage: Tenancy Source/Tenancy/Tenancy.csproj — Tenancy: 92 % XML-doc coverage (24/26).
  • XML-doc coverage: CLI Source/CLI/CLI.csproj — CLI: 92 % XML-doc coverage (206/224).
  • XML-doc coverage: Events Source/Events/Events.csproj — Events: 75 % XML-doc coverage (683/914).
  • XML-doc coverage: Resources Source/Resources/Resources.csproj — Resources: 100 % XML-doc coverage (17/17).
  • XML-doc coverage: Platform Source/Platform/Platform.csproj — Platform: 95 % XML-doc coverage (41/43).
  • XML-doc coverage: MongoDB Source/MongoDB/MongoDB.csproj — MongoDB: 50 % XML-doc coverage (3/6).
  • XML-doc coverage: Configuration Source/Configuration/Configuration.csproj — Configuration: 92 % XML-doc coverage (46/50).
  • XML-doc coverage: Hosting Source/Hosting/Hosting.csproj — Hosting: 96 % XML-doc coverage (26/27).
  • XML-doc coverage: Domain Source/Domain/Domain.csproj — Domain: 100 % XML-doc coverage (42/42).
  • XML-doc coverage: Actors Source/Actors/Actors.csproj — Actors: 64 % XML-doc coverage (42/66).
  • XML-doc coverage: Benchmarks Integration/Benchmarks/Benchmarks.csproj — Benchmarks: 64 % XML-doc coverage (39/61).
  • + 3 more in this group — see findings.md.
D17 · Explicit Debt · Justified suppression · ×18
  • Justified suppression Source/Rudimentary/TaskGroup.cs:79 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/Actors/ReverseCallDispatcherActor.cs:203 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/Actors/ReverseCallDispatcherActor.cs:547 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/Actors/ReverseCallDispatcherActor.cs:559 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/Actors/ReverseCallDispatcherActor.cs:568 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/ReverseCallDispatcher.cs:277 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/ReverseCallDispatcher.cs:332 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/ReverseCallDispatcher.cs:343 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Source/Services/ReverseCallDispatcher.cs:353 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Specifications/EventHorizon/Consumer/for_Subscription/given/all_dependencies.cs:100 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
  • Justified suppression Specifications/Services.Clients/for_ReverseCallClient/when_handling/and_connection_is_established/and_we_get_2_pings_and_a_request.cs:114 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
  • Justified suppression Specifications/Services.Clients/for_ReverseCallClient/when_handling/and_connection_is_established/and_we_get_a_request.cs:104 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
  • Justified suppression Specifications/Services/ReverseCalls/for_PingedConnection/given/Scenario.cs:331 — empty catch in test code (best-effort teardown)
  • Justified suppression Source/Platform/VersionInfo.cs:8 — #pragma warning disable SA1122 // To allow replacing pre release with "" instead of string.Empty
  • Justified suppression Source/Actors/Hosting/ApplicationLifecycleHooks.cs:120 — empty catch — narrow/filtered/commented, treated as intentional
  • Justified suppression Integration/Shared/EventStoreExtensions.cs:57 — #pragma warning disable CS0612 // Type or member is obsolete
  • Justified suppression Integration/Benchmarks/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/Filter.cs:31 — #pragma warning disable CA1001 // Types that own disposable fields should be disposable. IterationCleanup fixes it.
  • Justified suppression Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/EventHandlers/given/single_tenant_and_event_handlers.cs:133 — empty catch (Exception) in test code (best-effort teardown)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Store.MongoDB (Production) · ×3
  • Events.Store.MongoDB (Production) Source/Events.Store.MongoDB/Events.Store.MongoDB.csproj — 103 .cs files, 6218 LoC (3830 significant)
  • Events.Store.MongoDB (Production) Specifications/Events.Store.MongoDB/Events.Store.MongoDB.csproj — 57 .cs files, 2134 LoC (1635 significant)
  • Events.Store.MongoDB (Production) Integration/Tests/Events.Store.MongoDB/Events.Store.MongoDB.csproj — 15 .cs files, 478 LoC (351 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Services (Production) · ×3
  • Services (Production) Source/Services/Services.csproj — 81 .cs files, 5256 LoC (3407 significant)
  • Services (Production) Specifications/Services/Services.csproj — 120 .cs files, 4543 LoC (3442 significant)
  • Services (Production) Integration/Tests/Services/Services.csproj — 10 .cs files, 371 LoC (282 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DependencyInversion (Production) · ×2
  • DependencyInversion (Production) Source/DependencyInversion/DependencyInversion.csproj — 43 .cs files, 1620 LoC (894 significant)
  • DependencyInversion (Production) Specifications/DependencyInversion/DependencyInversion.csproj — 1 .cs files, 4 LoC (3 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · EventHorizon (Production) · ×2
  • EventHorizon (Production) Source/EventHorizon/EventHorizon.csproj — 62 .cs files, 3932 LoC (2518 significant)
  • EventHorizon (Production) Specifications/EventHorizon/EventHorizon.csproj — 45 .cs files, 1765 LoC (1406 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Production) · ×2
  • Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Production) Source/Events.Store.Services.Grpc/Events.Store.Services.Grpc.csproj — 1 .cs files, 76 LoC (51 significant)
  • Events.Store.Services.Grpc (Production) Integration/Tests/Events.Store.Services.Grpc/Events.Store.Services.Grpc.csproj — 4 .cs files, 290 LoC (231 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Execution (Production) · ×2
  • Execution (Production) Source/Execution/Execution.csproj — 6 .cs files, 238 LoC (100 significant)
  • Execution (Production) Specifications/Execution/Execution.csproj — 5 .cs files, 189 LoC (152 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Metrics (Production) · ×2
  • Metrics (Production) Source/Metrics/Metrics.csproj — 10 .cs files, 305 LoC (176 significant)
  • Metrics (Production) Specifications/Metrics/Metrics.csproj — 1 .cs files, 4 LoC (3 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Protobuf (Production) · ×2
  • Protobuf (Production) Source/Protobuf/Protobuf.csproj — 12 .cs files, 405 LoC (171 significant)
  • Protobuf (Production) Specifications/Protobuf/Protobuf.csproj — 6 .cs files, 222 LoC (169 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Rudimentary (Production) · ×2
  • Rudimentary (Production) Source/Rudimentary/Rudimentary.csproj — 19 .cs files, 1781 LoC (936 significant)
  • Rudimentary (Production) Specifications/Rudimentary/Rudimentary.csproj — 20 .cs files, 446 LoC (324 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Services.Clients (Production) · ×2
  • Services.Clients (Production) Source/Services.Clients/Services.Clients.csproj — 22 .cs files, 1765 LoC (1094 significant)
  • Services.Clients (Production) Specifications/Services.Clients/Services.Clients.csproj — 23 .cs files, 926 LoC (718 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Processing (Production) · ×2
  • Events.Processing (Production) Specifications/Events.Processing/Events.Processing.csproj — 113 .cs files, 4837 LoC (3755 significant)
  • Events.Processing (Production) Integration/Tests/Events.Processing/Events.Processing.csproj — 96 .cs files, 3848 LoC (2794 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Store (Production) · ×2
  • Events.Store (Production) Specifications/Events.Store/Events.Store.csproj — 78 .cs files, 2409 LoC (1810 significant)
  • Events.Store (Production) Integration/Tests/Events.Store/Events.Store.csproj — 16 .cs files, 1764 LoC (1446 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events (Production) · ×2
  • Events (Production) Source/Events/Events.csproj — 289 .cs files, 18321 LoC (11031 significant)
  • Events (Production) Specifications/Events/Events.csproj — 1 .cs files, 4 LoC (3 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Platform (Production) · ×2
  • Platform (Production) Source/Platform/Platform.csproj — 21 .cs files, 703 LoC (386 significant)
  • Platform (Production) Specifications/Platform/Platform.csproj — 9 .cs files, 178 LoC (114 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · MongoDB (Production) · ×2
  • MongoDB (Production) Source/MongoDB/MongoDB.csproj — 3 .cs files, 107 LoC (72 significant)
  • MongoDB (Production) Specifications/MongoDB/MongoDB.csproj — 4 .cs files, 112 LoC (84 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Domain (Production) · ×2
  • Domain (Production) Source/Domain/Domain.csproj — 12 .cs files, 364 LoC (127 significant)
  • Domain (Production) Specifications/Domain/Domain.csproj — 8 .cs files, 118 LoC (74 significant)
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×1
  • Mock framework: Moq — Shared references Moq.
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 53 packages scanned; 3 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · Artifacts (Production) · ×1
  • Artifacts (Production) Source/Artifacts/Artifacts.csproj — 4 .cs files, 92 LoC (28 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Store.Services.WebAPI (Production) · ×1
  • Events.Store.Services.WebAPI (Production) Source/Events.Store.Services.WebAPI/Events.Store.Services.WebAPI.csproj — 17 .cs files, 643 LoC (338 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Microservices (Production) · ×1
  • Microservices (Production) Source/Microservices/Microservices.csproj — 5 .cs files, 74 LoC (26 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Server (Production) · ×1
  • Server (Production) Source/Server/Server.csproj — 12 .cs files, 501 LoC (326 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Tenancy (Production) · ×1
  • Tenancy (Production) Source/Tenancy/Tenancy.csproj — 10 .cs files, 388 LoC (187 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · CLI (Production) · ×1
  • CLI (Production) Source/CLI/CLI.csproj — 104 .cs files, 3840 LoC (2076 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Aggregates (Production) · ×1
  • Aggregates (Production) Specifications/Aggregates/Aggregates.csproj — 14 .cs files, 334 LoC (229 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Resources (Production) · ×1
  • Resources (Production) Source/Resources/Resources.csproj — 7 .cs files, 242 LoC (127 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Configuration (Production) · ×1
  • Configuration (Production) Source/Configuration/Configuration.csproj — 20 .cs files, 878 LoC (540 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Hosting (Production) · ×1
  • Hosting (Production) Source/Hosting/Hosting.csproj — 8 .cs files, 366 LoC (208 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Actors (Production) · ×1
  • Actors (Production) Source/Actors/Actors.csproj — 16 .cs files, 838 LoC (509 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Shared (Production) · ×1
  • Shared (Production) Integration/Shared/Shared.csproj — 7 .cs files, 403 LoC (317 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Benchmarks (Production) · ×1
  • Benchmarks (Production) Integration/Benchmarks/Benchmarks.csproj — 11 .cs files, 1356 LoC (763 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Bootstrap (Production) · ×1
  • Bootstrap (Production) Source/Bootstrap/Bootstrap.csproj — 5 .cs files, 145 LoC (69 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Diagnostics (Production) · ×1
  • Diagnostics (Production) Source/Diagnostics/Diagnostics.csproj — 5 .cs files, 172 LoC (127 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Client (Production) · ×1
  • Client (Production) Source/Client/Client.csproj — 10 .cs files, 395 LoC (238 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Configuration.Management (Production) · ×1
  • Configuration.Management (Production) Source/Configuration.Management/Configuration.Management.csproj — 4 .cs files, 235 LoC (176 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Processing.Tests (Test) · ×1
  • Events.Processing.Tests (Test) Specifications/Events.Processing.Tests/Events.Processing.Tests.csproj — 34 .cs files, 1615 LoC (1156 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · Events.Store.MongoDB.Tests (Test) · ×1
  • Events.Store.MongoDB.Tests (Test) Specifications/Events.Store.MongoDB.Tests/Events.Store.MongoDB.Tests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 179 LoC (140 significant)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL measured · ×1
  • IL measured — 204 methods; 0 oversized (> 250 IL); 0 boxing ops.
D9 · Test Distribution · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 107 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 9 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list Runtime.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json5artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy config --format json --quiet .6artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** .0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: 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 Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner --format json --recursive .0artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 019ee6b5-5b5c-7513-8d27-e98322d52270 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md