Executive summary
The system holds an adequate overall standing at 64%, reflecting a large, complex asset that is functionally sound but carries significant operational risk due to gaps in institutional knowledge. With nearly 600,000 lines of production code and a rebuild cost exceeding €3 million, this is a high-value asset where stability depends less on raw code quality and more on how well the organization understands and maintains it. The architecture is robust, and the code itself is clean, but the lack of documented decision-making creates a fragile foundation for future changes.
The primary risk lies in knowledge erosion. With a maturity score of 49%, the system lacks the necessary documentation to ensure new teams can safely navigate its complexities. This gap threatens delivery speed and increases the likelihood of costly defects, as critical design rationales are not preserved. Without clear records of why certain technical choices were made, every change becomes a high-stakes guess, potentially leading to regression or architectural drift that undermines the system’s long-term reliability.
Conversely, the code and architecture remain strong. The underlying structure is healthy, with high scores in code health and architecture, indicating that the system is maintainable and changes are unlikely to cause widespread ripple effects. This strength provides a solid base for remediation efforts. However, this technical soundness is undermined by the absence of measured test coverage and incomplete build processes, which leave blind spots in quality assurance and security validation.
The highest-leverage action is to establish a formal record of architectural decisions. By documenting key choices in a centralized, discoverable format, the team can immediately reduce risk and accelerate onboarding. This step requires minimal effort but delivers disproportionate value by preserving institutional memory. Other improvements, such as updating the README and addressing specific documentation gaps, should follow once this foundation is in place. Confidence in this assessment is moderate, as several key areas, including security and performance, were not measured and may reveal additional risks.
Raise Maturity 49 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 64 → ~74.
New since the last scan (100+)
- D8 · Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
- D10 · Skipped test: Group_by_on_json_scalar_with_multiple_aggregates test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs
- D10 · Skipped test: Project_top_level_json_entity_with_missing_scalars test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs
- D10 · Skipped test: Missing_navigation_works_with_deduplication test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs
- D10 · Skipped test: Project_json_array_of_primitives_on_collection test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/JsonQueryTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: Project_all_types_entity_with_missing_scalars test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/AdHocMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AddColumnOperation_without_column_type test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_unicode_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_fixed_length_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_maxLength_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_precision_and_scale_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AddForeignKeyOperation_without_principal_columns test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: AlterColumnOperation_without_column_type test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: RenameTableOperation_legacy test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: RenameTableOperation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: SqlOperation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: InsertDataOperation_all_args_spatial test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args_multiple_rows test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_all_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_all_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_composite_multi test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_multi test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_required_args_multiple_rows test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_required_args_composite_multi test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_required_args_multi test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DefaultValue_with_line_breaks test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DefaultValue_with_line_breaks_2 test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: Sequence_restart_operation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DbContext_as_field test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Query/PrecompiledQueryRelationalTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DbContext_as_property test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Query/PrecompiledQueryRelationalTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: DbContext_as_method_invocation_result test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Query/PrecompiledQueryRelationalTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredPkToPkTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithAlternateKeyTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithCompositeKeyTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithCompositeKeyTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkWithCompositeKeyTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkWithCompositeKeyTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithoutCascadeDeleteTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredPkToPkNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNoNavigationToPrincipalNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNoNavigationToPrincipalNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToPrincipalNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToPrincipalNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNoNavigationToDependentsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNoNavigationToDependentsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToDependentsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToDependentsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNoNavigationsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalNoNavigationsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationsNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithAlternateKeyNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithCompositeKeyNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithCompositeKeyNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOneToOneRequiredWithShadowFkWithCompositeKeyNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneOptionalWithShadowFkWithCompositeKeyNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToOneRequiredWithoutCascadeDeleteNrtTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredWithShadowFkTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalWithShadowFkTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToPrincipalTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationToDependentsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyOptionalNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
- D10 · No assertions: OneToManyRequiredWithShadowFkAndNoNavigationsTest test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,000,000–€5,200,000
| Cost to rebuild | €1,000,000–€5,200,000 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.9× (at 64% quality) |
| Size & shape | Very large · effort split not classified for 810 line(s) outside the .NET model (the tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~21.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,100,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 49% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 31 | REDACTED / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 2 | REDACTED / Critical |
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 1 | REDACTED |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a formal architecture decision record system to capture key design choices and their consequences in a centralized location. Simultaneously, update the README to accurately reflect all benchmark projects and include clear instructions for running the test suite. Finally, address knowledge gaps by resolving orphaned documentation and ensuring all technical references remain current and accessible.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +12.2 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). | +14.3 pts | REDACTED | Architecture documentation |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the EFCore.Benchmarks project; README omits the EFCore.SqlServer and EFCore.Sqlite benchmarks projects. | +14.2 pts | REDACTED | Documentation accuracy |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +11.4 pts | REDACTED | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs, OperatorsProceduralQueryTestBase.cs, StoredProcedureUpdateTestBase.cs. | +4.7 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +4.5 pts | REDACTED | Deployment & Rollback |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +4.5 pts | REDACTED | Release Hygiene |
| Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). | +2.1 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 4.5 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 6.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED |
| test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: Custom_naming_projection_everything |
| test/EFCore.InMemory.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindGroupByQueryInMemoryTest.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: GroupBy_ValueTuple_projection_joined_on_tuple_member |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ComplexTypesTrackingTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: Can_change_state_from_Deleted_with_complex_struct_collection |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding/ModelBuilderTest.ComplexType.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: Properties_are_required_by_default_only_if_CLR_type_is_nullable |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding/ModelBuilderTest.ComplexCollections.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: Properties_are_required_by_default_only_if_CLR_type_is_nullable |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/JsonQueryTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: Json_subquery_reference_pushdown_reference_anonymous_projection |
| test/EFCore.SqlServer.FunctionalTests/Query/EntitySplittingQuerySqlServerTest.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: Skipped test: Normal_entity_owning_a_split_reference_with_main_fragment_not_sharing |
| test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: AddColumnOperation_without_column_type |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: OneToOneRequiredTest |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNrtTest |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: OneToManyRequiredTest |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyNrtTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: OneToManyRequiredNrtTest |
| test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101ManyToManyTestBase.cs | 7.0 | Mixed | Test Quality: No assertions: BasicManyToManyTest |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 50 of 53 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 53 dimensions across the health lenses
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 603 of 625 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.cs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.cs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load.
- D4 Code Duplication — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Most of this repository's production source (.cs) was not read by duplication detection: no source of those file kinds was exposed to the token comparison by any language model this pass could load.
- D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 19,307 test(s) behind this row are the ones the C# collector could read, and this repository also carries at least 6 test source file(s) (.fs, .vb, .mjs) that it cannot: it parses C# syntax and matches C# test attributes, so a vitest/jest/JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry), so no test ever ran. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — it is excluded from the score. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Dependency Hygiene couldn't be assessed within its 5-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.
- D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository's committed lockfile was read and it resolves no production dependency: everything it installs is declared under `devDependencies`, or is a workspace-internal package with no registry release behind it. Licences are resolved from registry.npmjs.org, because an npm checkout does not contain its dependencies' licences. NOT a finding that this repository's licences are compliant: this dimension asserts nothing about its licensing in either direction.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (164046 line(s) across the 90-day window), but no complexity could be computed for .cs, which is most of this repository's production code — so every churned file would score as complexity 0 and the hotspot list would be empty no matter how tangled the code is. Not scored — this is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository DOES commit C#/VB source and a project or solution file, so the conventions are there to read and the load still produced nothing. That is OUR side and it is an ENVIRONMENT fault, not a missing collector: the collector exists and runs on C# constantly, and the remedy is to inspect the restore, the SDK band and the target resolution — not to build anything.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan. 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) (npm,osv) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; nuget was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that nuget is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `benchmark/EFCore.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersContextBase.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/AdventureWorks/AdventureWorksPoolableSqlServerContext.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerContext.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerFixture.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.Sqlite.Benchmarks/Models/AdventureWorks/AdventureWorksPoolableSqliteContext.cs`, … (+325 more) produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
- D39 IL Efficiency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. `dotnet build` exited 1 with a compiler/MSBuild diagnostic, so there were no assemblies to read IL from. The build itself is D18's row, with the ask; nothing further is charged here.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — measured, with a gap in what it reached — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan. 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) (npm,osv) WERE scanned and every vulnerability they reported is included in this result; nuget was not, so this dimension's score covers less than the dependency surface this repository declares, and nothing here is evidence that nuget is free of known-vulnerable dependencies.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured.
- DM5 Encapsulated state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it.
- DM7 Repository granularity — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository's C# was parsed (it ships no .sln or .csproj, so it was read as syntax-only projects), but this check proves its findings from resolved symbols and a reference-free parse resolves none. It abstained rather than report a clean bill it could not earn. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach into build-less repositories — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository's C# was parsed (it ships no .sln or .csproj, so it was read as syntax-only projects), but this check proves its findings from resolved symbols and a reference-free parse resolves none. It abstained rather than report a clean bill it could not earn. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach into build-less repositories — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository's C# was parsed (it ships no .sln or .csproj, so it was read as syntax-only projects), but this check proves its findings from the project graph and a reference-free parse supplies none. It abstained rather than report a clean bill it could not earn. That is a gap in this analyzer's reach into build-less repositories — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- Production source was not modelled — run is Degraded — No code model read .cs, so the complexity, duplication and architecture dimensions were scored over a minority of this repository rather than its product, and dimensions that abstained did so for want of a model rather than for want of findings. The grade is NOT representative of this repository; diagnostics.md records the exact cause.
- Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for eng/Tools/ApiChief/ApiChief.csproj, src/dotnet-ef/dotnet-ef.csproj, src/ef/ef.csproj, src/EFCore.Abstractions/EFCore.Abstractions.csproj, src/EFCore.Analyzers/EFCore.Analyzers.csproj and 54 more, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- 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").
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- 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.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D5 · Coupling
58 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 3 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D9 · Test Distribution
20 test methods: 20 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e. The JavaScript/TypeScript suite contributes 20 `it`/`test` case(s) across 1 test file(s) declaring at least one; its tier split is read from package names and paths only.
D10 · Test Quality
370 skipped (88 with a documented reason), 181 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 19307 tests. Measured on the C# suite only — at least 6 test source file(s) (.fs, .vb, .mjs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with LinqToCSharpSyntaxTranslatorTest.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 282 Skipped test finding(s) in Test Quality — start with ComplexTypesTrackingTestBase.cs (42), ModelBuilderTest.ComplexType.cs (42), JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs (41). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (282 warning-level).
- Resolve the 180 No assertions finding(s) in Test Quality — start with MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs (30), ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs (24), ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs (23). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (180 warning-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D16 · Bus Factor
65 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/EFCore/Metadata/Builders/EntityTypeBuilder`.cs. Counted over 2104 of the 3763 production source files in this repository: 1615 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 44 have no attributable history left to measure.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: the README files alone at 653 words cover a strong overview (repository purpose, .NET Foundation projects, Microsoft/Data.Sqlite), installation/usage for EF Core tools (dotnet add package commands, database drop/update tables), detailed architecture docs on providers, templates, MSBuild tasks, and Sqlite/native-binary integration; the architecture/Docs markdown files provide cross-project design coverage. The content is clear, complete, and well-organized with a strong overview. The EF Core provider documentation is strong and well-structured: each README file (EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId, EFCore.SqlServer.Abstractions, EFCore.Proxies, EFCore.InMemory, EFCore.Cosmos, EFCore.Design, EFCore.Analyzers) gives a clear purpose, usage examples, and links to Microsoft Learn/Docs for the core concepts it implements. The architecture/design docs are also present (4 markdown files), covering provider-level topics such as dependency relationships and versioning.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D28 · Secrets (history)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
31 finding(s): 0 critical, 27 high, 4 medium, 0 low. semgrep hit a parse error in 334 file(s) — `benchmark/EFCore.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersContextBase.cs` (line 8), `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Initialization/InitializationSqlServerTests.cs` (lines 40–42, line 48), `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/AdventureWorks/AdventureWorksPoolableSqlServerContext.cs` (line 6, lines 6–7), `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerContext.cs` (lines 8–9), `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerFixture.cs` (line 8), … (+329 more) — so no absence of findings in the named regions is evidence of anything; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. Fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover them. In 242 of those file(s) — `benchmark/EFCore.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersContextBase.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Initialization/InitializationSqlServerTests.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/AdventureWorks/AdventureWorksPoolableSqlServerContext.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerContext.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerFixture.cs`, … (+237 more) — the break is a C# primary constructor, which semgrep's grammar cannot parse and which hides the type from every rule scoped to it; those files were re-scanned from a shadow copy with the constructor's parameter list blanked (line and column preserving), which restores the type to the rules, and 0 additional row(s) came from that pass. Only the header's own parameter list is unread in them. In 15 of those file(s) — `src/EFCore.Cosmos/Query/Internal/Translators/CosmosFullTextSearchTranslator.cs`, `src/EFCore.Design/Query/Internal/PrecompiledQueryCodeGenerator.cs`, `src/EFCore.Relational/Diagnostics/Internal/RelationalCommandDiagnosticsLogger.cs`, `src/EFCore.Relational/Query/SqlExpressions/SelectExpression.Helper.cs`, `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Query/Internal/SqlServerJsonPostprocessor.cs`, … (+10 more) — the break is at a TYPE DECLARATION (a C# primary constructor semgrep's grammar cannot parse), so the loss is wider than the named lines: rules scoped to that type see no type to scope to and are blind over its whole body, while rules matching statements keep working there. Absence of a type-scoped finding in those types is not evidence of anything.
What to do
- Resolve the 27 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (8), REDACTED (6), REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (27 issue-level).
- Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 2 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm,osv). Partial dependency scan: 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm,osv), and the findings above are real and complete for them. nuget was not scanned (nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
D31 · IaC & Container Security
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 1 low.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
151 of 2148 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/EFCore.Design/Query/Internal/CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs. Counted over 2148 of the 3763 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs, OperatorsProceduralQueryTestBase.cs, StoredProcedureUpdateTestBase.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs↔SqlServerEventId.cs 100%; CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs↔MigrationsCodeGenerator.cs 83%; CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs↔SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs 82%
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Boundary-crossing change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 7 Change coupling finding(s) in Change Coupling — start with SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs (2), CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs, CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
A vulnerability-disclosure policy (.github/SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No known-vulnerable dependencies in the 2 ecosystem(s) that were scanned (npm,osv). Partial dependency scan: 2 of 3 declared ecosystem(s) were scanned (npm,osv), and the findings above are real and complete for them. nuget was not scanned (nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan), so this is not the whole dependency surface and the result is reported at reduced confidence.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 60 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×2) — src/Shared/EnumerableMethods.cs:571, src/Shared/EnumerableMethods.cs:577
What to do
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)
- 1140 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
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.
- Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README omits the EFCore.Benchmarks project — reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong.
- README omits the EFCore.SqlServer and EFCore.Sqlite benchmarks projects — reported by the model that read the README against this repository; no term search was run for this one, so nothing here has been checked against the tree. Treat it as a reading to confirm, not as a measured contradiction: verify it against the code before acting on it, and if the footprint it describes does exist, this row is wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the EFCore.Benchmarks project; README omits the EFCore.SqlServer and EFCore.Sqlite benchmarks projects.
P1 · CI/CD gates
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- <NuGetAudit>false</NuGetAudit> in MSBuild suppresses NuGet's vulnerability audit project-wide. (×2) — test/Directory.Build.props:8, benchmark/Directory.Build.props:6
What to do
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- The release is automated and no gate that pauses it for a human is DECLARED IN THIS REPOSITORY'S PIPELINE FILES. What was read: every file under `.github/workflows/`, `.forgejo/workflows/`, `.gitea/workflows/`, `.azuredevops/` and `.azure-pipelines/`, plus `.gitlab-ci*` and `azure-pipelines*` — with comment text stripped, so documenting a gate is not declaring one. What would have counted: GitLab's `when: manual`, CircleCI's `type: approval`, an Azure `ManualValidation@` task or an `approvals:` block, a Jenkins `input` step, a `uses:` step naming an approval action, an `environment:` paired with `reviewers` / `required_reviewers` / `protection` / `wait-timer` / `deployment_branch_policy`, a draft-release step, a `workflow_dispatch` promotion, or a release-event gate. ★ What this cannot see, because none of it is a file: a GitHub environment whose required reviewers are configured in repo SETTINGS, a branch protection rule, or an organisation deployment policy — all of them real, enforced gates that live outside the repository. If yours is one of those, this row is wrong and nothing in the tree could have told us. Otherwise: whatever the release trigger points at is published to users unreviewed, so a mistagged or unverified commit ships and the only remedy is a follow-up release.
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
X1 · Async correctness
X12 · Unreachable branch
X13 · Undrained process stream
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
X4 · Structured logging
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 93% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 49% | Weak — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 70% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
| Security | 75% | Adequate — gated by D29, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — 1 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 64 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — cyclomatic complexity not measured — .cs exposed no member bodies
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not measured — analyzer environment
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget)
- D14 License Compliance — npm licences not graded — this repository's lockfile resolves no production dependency
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .cs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — Dimension evaluation failed
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — cognitive complexity not measured — .cs exposed no member bodies
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.cs, .py) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — Most of this repository's production source (.cs) was not read by navigability analysis, so tracing effort was not assessed — whatever else resolved (another language's projects) is not this repository's navigability. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D3 God Classes — Most of this repository's production source (.cs) was not read by god-class detection, so class size was not assessed for the languages that are the product — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's class size. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 330 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
- D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the target did not build
- D4 Code Duplication — Duplication not measured — .cs not exposed to the token comparison
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — not scored for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model — not scored for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM5 Encapsulated state — not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — this TypeScript/JavaScript repository maps no type to a persistence framework (TypeORM/Prisma/MikroORM/Sequelize/Mongoose), so DM6's domain↔infrastructure fusion read has no population to be taken over
- DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable (this repository commits no MSBuild project, so its C# was read as syntax-only projects — a handler marked ONLY by an interface from a package is not visible without a build)
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check needs a compiled C# program and this repository commits no project file to compile, so only its syntax could be read. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X27 Collection changed while being enumerated — This check needs a compiled C# program and this repository commits no project file to compile, so only its syntax could be read. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X5 Nullable reference types — This check needs a compiled C# program and this repository commits no project file to compile, so only its syntax could be read. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 37 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Orphaned knowledge src/EFCore.Design/Query/Internal/CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs
- Orphaned knowledge test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Query/OperatorsProceduralQueryTestBase.cs
- Orphaned knowledge test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Update/StoredProcedureUpdateTestBase.cs
- Orphaned knowledge test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/AdHocAdvancedMappingsQueryTestBase.cs
- Orphaned knowledge src/EFCore.Relational/Query/Internal/GroupBySingleQueryingEnumerable.cs
- NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) test/Directory.Build.props:8
- NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) benchmark/Directory.Build.props:6
- No assertions (empty test): Index_lifts_earlier_args_if_later_arg_is_lifted test/EFCore.Design.Tests/Query/LinqToCSharpSyntaxTranslatorTest.cs:1348
- REDACTED
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs ↔ RelationalValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs src/EFCore.Cosmos/Query/Internal/CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs
Serious — 476 finding(s)
- Skipped test: Fixup_ignores_eagerly_initialized_reference_navs test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/OverzealousInitializationCosmosTest.cs:9
- Skipped test: Find_base_type_using_derived_set_tracked test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:12
- Skipped test: Find_base_type_using_derived_set_tracked_async test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:15
- Skipped test: Find_derived_using_base_set_type_from_store test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:19
- Skipped test: Find_derived_using_base_set_type_from_store_async test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:22
- Skipped test: Can_update_dependents test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/EmbeddedDocumentsTest.cs:22
- Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_string_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:22
- Skipped test: Can_query_and_update_with_nullable_converter_on_primary_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:30
- Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_binary_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:34
- Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_case_insensitive_string_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:38
- Skipped test: Can_read_back_mapped_enum_from_collection_first_or_default test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:46
- Skipped test: Can_read_back_bool_mapped_as_int_through_navigation test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:58
- Skipped test: Value_conversion_is_appropriately_used_for_join_condition test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:62
- Skipped test: Value_conversion_is_appropriately_used_for_left_join_condition test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:66
- Skipped test: Any test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/ConcurrencyDetectorEnabledCosmosTest.cs:55
- Skipped test: Any test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/ConcurrencyDetectorDisabledCosmosTest.cs:10
- Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_string_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:17
- Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_binary_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:21
- Skipped test: Can_read_back_mapped_enum_from_collection_first_or_default test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:29
- Skipped test: Can_read_back_bool_mapped_as_int_through_navigation test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:33
- Skipped test: Custom_naming_projection_everything test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:306
- Skipped test: Group_by_FirstOrDefault_on_json_scalar test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:408
- Skipped test: Group_by_First_on_json_scalar test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:412
- Skipped test: Group_by_json_scalar_Orderby_json_scalar_FirstOrDefault test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:416
- Skipped test: Group_by_json_scalar_Skip_First_project_json_scalar test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:420
- No assertions: Project_all_types_entity_with_missing_scalars test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/AdHocMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:13
- No assertions: On_methods_are_noops_when_null test/EFCore.Design.Tests/Design/OperationReportHandlerTest.cs:12
- No assertions: OperationException_exposes_public_empty_constructor test/EFCore.Design.Tests/Design/OperationExceptionTest.cs:8
- No assertions: BeginTransaction_can_be_used_after_another_transaction_if_connection_closed test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/TransactionTestBase.cs:1115
- No assertions: AddColumnOperation_without_column_type test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:32
- No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_unicode_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:55
- No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_fixed_length_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:67
- No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_maxLength_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:94
- No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_precision_and_scale_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:119
- No assertions: AddForeignKeyOperation_without_principal_columns test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:131
- No assertions: AlterColumnOperation_without_column_type test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:141
- No assertions: RenameTableOperation_legacy test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:151
- No assertions: RenameTableOperation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:161
- No assertions: SqlOperation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:173
- No assertions: InsertDataOperation_all_args_spatial test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:216
- No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:240
- No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:251
- No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args_multiple_rows test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:262
- No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_all_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:359
- No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_all_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:370
- No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:384
- No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:395
- No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:447
- No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:460
- No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_composite_multi test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:473
- Change coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs ↔ SqlServerEventId.cs src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs
- Change coupling: CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs ↔ MigrationsCodeGenerator.cs src/EFCore.Design/Migrations/Design/CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs
- Change coupling: CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs ↔ SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs src/EFCore.Cosmos/Infrastructure/Internal/CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs
- Change coupling: CosmosSingletonOptions.cs ↔ SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs src/EFCore.Cosmos/Infrastructure/Internal/CosmosSingletonOptions.cs
- Change coupling: SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs ↔ SqlServerMigrationsSqlGenerator.cs src/EFCore.SqlServer/Metadata/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs
- Change coupling: SqlServerAnnotationCodeGenerator.cs ↔ SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs src/EFCore.SqlServer/Design/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationCodeGenerator.cs
- Change coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs ↔ REDACTED src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
- README may be stale
- Coverage collected but not gated
Minor — 24 finding(s)
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #4
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #5
- Documentation: no architecture or design documentation src/EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId/README.md
- Documentation: no architecture or design documentation src/EFCore.SqlServer.Abstractions/README.md
- Commented-out code src/Shared/EnumerableMethods.cs:571
- Commented-out code src/Shared/EnumerableMethods.cs:577
- README/code drift
- README/code drift
- Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
- No ADRs found
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- No ADRs
- No architecture diagram/doc
- No release approval gate
- No changelog
Minor — 88 finding(s)
- Skipped (documented): Binding_interceptors_are_used_by_queries test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:43
- Skipped (documented): Multiple_materialization_interceptors_can_be_used test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:47
- Skipped (documented): Intercept_query_materialization_for_empty_constructor test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:51
- Skipped (documented): Intercept_query_materialization_for_full_constructor test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:55
- Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_inline_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:14
- Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_captured_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:18
- Skipped (documented): Can_query_and_update_with_conversion_for_custom_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:26
- Skipped (documented): Can_insert_and_query_struct_to_string_converter_for_pk test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:42
- Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_inline_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:9
- Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_captured_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:13
- Skipped (documented): Where_subquery_closure_via_query_cache test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindWhereQueryCosmosTest.cs:500
- Skipped (documented): VisitLambda_should_not_be_visited_trivially test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:1821
- Skipped (documented): List_from_result_of_single_result test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:2115
- Skipped (documented): List_from_result_of_single_result_2 test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:2119
- Skipped (documented): List_from_result_of_single_result_3 test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:2123
- Skipped (documented): Where_subquery_expression test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:1532
- Skipped (documented): Where_subquery_expression_same_parametername test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:1552
- Skipped (documented): OrderBy_Distinct test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindAggregateOperatorsQueryCosmosTest.cs:1487
- Skipped (documented): Ordinal_owned_collection_concat_returns_same test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/CosmosNoTrackingWithIdentityResolutionProjectionTest.cs:363
- Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_property_in_nested_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:786
- Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:797
- Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_nested_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:808
- Skipped (documented): Entity_with_complex_type_with_group_by_and_first test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:819
- Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_property_in_nested_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeQueryCosmosTest.cs:490
- Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeQueryCosmosTest.cs:501
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-d37344dfa4534bd28b0b206d71b749dc/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-d37344dfa4534bd28b0b206d71b749dc/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 31 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | nuget | — | nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 1 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 330 file(s) — `benchmark/EFCore.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersContextBase.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/AdventureWorks/AdventureWorksPoolableSqlServerContext.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerContext.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.SqlServer.Benchmarks/Models/Orders/OrdersSqlServerFixture.cs`, `benchmark/EFCore.Sqlite.Benchmarks/Models/AdventureWorks/AdventureWorksPoolableSqliteContext.cs`, … (+325 more) — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | nuget | — | nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json |