Public report — efcore, published 22 Sep 2026. Concrete security findings (which rule fired, in which file, on which line; CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are REDACTED in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Public
Codebase survey Measured under the Code Assurance Index, but not filed — nothing here carries a record a reader can check independently. How a survey is verified No record

Dotnet/efcore

Measured 22 September 2026, 23:52 UTC

64% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary

Very large · 598,628 LoC · 58 projects · rebuild ~21.5 person-years · weakest lens: Maturity (49%)

Findings by grade

37 critical 476 serious 112 minor 26 could not be resolved — could be critical — see Limitations

This survey was produced by

Watchdog
Producer
Canine Development
Analyzer
Watchdog engine 1.0.0
Measured
22 September 2026, 23:52 UTC

A measurement, not a certificate. The Code Assurance Index does not certify, approve or guarantee this codebase; it records a reproducible number and the evidence it was computed from. The standard is authored by Canine Development, who also build Watchdog — its only implementation today. That is said here so the number is checked rather than believed.

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

50/53dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
603findings with an exact file:lineof 625 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
53/122dimensions across the health lenses598628 LoC · 58 projects — wide & deep
Chapters

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.

How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 49% · 47% weightReadiness 70% · 26% weightSecurity 75% · 14% weightArchitecture 93% · 8% weightCode Health 100% · 4% weight

Raise Maturity 49 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 64 → ~74.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 19%Plumbing 33%Tests 48%
New since the last scan (100+)

209 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-08-05) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required. Showing the first 100; the full set is in the report.

  • 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

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

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,000,000–€5,200,000
Cost to rebuild€1,000,000–€5,200,000 (10.1–32.8 person-years (17,001–55,177 h), ~12–41 engineers)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9× (at 64% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeVery 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.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.2) — high decision density × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30% · size measured directly from source. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
+12.2 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
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 effort · Architecture documentation
3
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 effort · Documentation accuracy

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · REDACTED · Value at risk
This is a Very large asset (~21.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 49%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Very large, ~21.5 person-years rebuild (598,628 LoC) · weakest lens: Maturity 49%
→ Direct remediation budget at Maturity first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · REDACTED · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).

Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch EFCore EFCore EFCore.Abstractions Abstractions EFCore->EFCore.Abstractions EFCore.Analyzers Analyzers EFCore->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Cosmos Cosmos EFCore.Cosmos->EFCore EFCore.Cosmos->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Design Design EFCore.Relational Relational EFCore.Design->EFCore.Relational EFCore.InMemory InMemory EFCore.InMemory->EFCore EFCore.InMemory->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Proxies Proxies EFCore.Proxies->EFCore EFCore.Proxies->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Relational->EFCore EFCore.Relational->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.SqlServer SqlServer EFCore.SqlServer->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.SqlServer->EFCore.Relational EFCore.SqlServer.Abstractions Abstractions EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId HierarchyId EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId->EFCore.SqlServer EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId->EFCore.SqlServer.Abstractions EFCore.SqlServer.NTS NTS EFCore.SqlServer.NTS->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.SqlServer.NTS->EFCore.SqlServer EFCore.Sqlite Sqlite EFCore.Sqlite->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Sqlite.Core Core EFCore.Sqlite->EFCore.Sqlite.Core EFCore.Sqlite.Core->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Sqlite.Core->EFCore.Relational Microsoft.Data.Sqlite.Core Core EFCore.Sqlite.Core->Microsoft.Data.Sqlite.Core EFCore.Sqlite.NTS NTS EFCore.Sqlite.NTS->EFCore.Analyzers EFCore.Sqlite.NTS->EFCore.Sqlite.Core EFCore.Tasks Tasks ef ef EFCore.Tasks->ef EFCore.Tools Tools EFCore.Tools->ef Microsoft.Data.Sqlite Sqlite Microsoft.Data.Sqlite->Microsoft.Data.Sqlite.Core __more__ +4 more projects

At a glance — Code Health · 100% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Exemplary ·

At a glance — Maturity · 49% · Weak · gated by M2 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 70% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Security · 75% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

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

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A03:2021 — Injection31REDACTED / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures2REDACTED / Critical
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration1REDACTED

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.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.+12.2 ptsLowADR 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 ptsREDACTEDArchitecture documentation
Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the EFCore.Benchmarks project; README omits the EFCore.SqlServer and EFCore.Sqlite benchmarks projects.+14.2 ptsREDACTEDDocumentation accuracy
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+11.4 ptsREDACTEDDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs, OperatorsProceduralQueryTestBase.cs, StoredProcedureUpdateTestBase.cs.+4.7 ptsLowKnowledge 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 ptsREDACTEDDeployment & Rollback
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+4.5 ptsREDACTEDRelease Hygiene
Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2).+2.1 ptsLowDocumentation Quality

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 90 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 62% mixed · 38% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
REDACTED4.4MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED4.5MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED4.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED5.1MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED5.8MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
REDACTED6.9MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): REDACTED: REDACTED
test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Custom_naming_projection_everything
test/EFCore.InMemory.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindGroupByQueryInMemoryTest.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: GroupBy_ValueTuple_projection_joined_on_tuple_member
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ComplexTypesTrackingTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Can_change_state_from_Deleted_with_complex_struct_collection
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding/ModelBuilderTest.ComplexType.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Properties_are_required_by_default_only_if_CLR_type_is_nullable
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding/ModelBuilderTest.ComplexCollections.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Properties_are_required_by_default_only_if_CLR_type_is_nullable
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/JsonQueryTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Json_subquery_reference_pushdown_reference_anonymous_projection
test/EFCore.SqlServer.FunctionalTests/Query/EntitySplittingQuerySqlServerTest.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Normal_entity_owning_a_split_reference_with_main_fragment_not_sharing
test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: AddColumnOperation_without_column_type
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: OneToOneRequiredTest
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToOneNrtTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: OneToOneRequiredNrtTest
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: OneToManyRequiredTest
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101OneToManyNrtTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: OneToManyRequiredNrtTest
test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding101ManyToManyTestBase.cs7.0MixedTest Quality: No assertions: BasicManyToManyTest

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 37

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.

Serious — 476

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.

Minor — 112

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 26

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.

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

What we checked — 53 dimensions across the health lenses
D5D6D9D10D13D16D19D20D21D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D37D43D44AX10AX3AX4GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X25X26X28X29X3X30X32X4

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

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 603 of 625 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)Code duplication1.0.0✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.400✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.400✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a0cb89-6c38-7f68-bb35-35f123dede1c.

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

Run transparency — what happened this run

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

  • 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.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • 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

LLM-set scores this run (3): D19, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D5 · Coupling6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

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

What to do

  1. Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

0 of 3 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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.

No assertions (empty test): Index_lifts_earlier_args_if_later_arg_is_liftedtest/EFCore.Design.Tests/Query/LinqToCSharpSyntaxTranslatorTest.cs:1348
Skipped test: Fixup_ignores_eagerly_initialized_reference_navs · ×282test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/OverzealousInitializationCosmosTest.cs:9
No assertions: Project_all_types_entity_with_missing_scalars · ×180test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/AdHocMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:13
Skipped (documented): Binding_interceptors_are_used_by_queries · ×88test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:43

What to do

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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).
  4. Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

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

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.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 · ×5
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 · Documentation QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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.

Documentation: no architecture or design documentation · ×2src/EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId/README.md

What to do

  1. 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).

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

D20 · ADR Quality0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)9.0 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged REDACTED. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.1 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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.

REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. 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).
  2. 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).

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

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any dependency has a known published vulnerability (CVE), direct or transitive, in ANY ecosystem the repository declares — Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go modules, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, JavaScript/npm, .NET/NuGet, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift.

Method: Dependency-CVE scan across every ecosystem the repository declares, scored ONCE. Three sources are unioned and deduplicated by advisory identity (rule id + alias closure, CVE<->GHSA) scoped to package+version, keeping the worst severity: `osv-scanner --recursive` over osv.dev for Dart pub, Elixir/Hex, Go, Java and Kotlin via Maven/Gradle, npm, PHP/Composer, Python/PyPI, RubyGems, Rust/Cargo and Swift; `trivy fs --scanners vuln` for npm lockfiles; and `dotnet list package --vulnerable --include-transitive` for NuGet (with per-advisory collapse of the project x target-framework fan-out), plus a DECLARED-dependency arm that resolves a published gem's gemspec against rubygems.org where no Gemfile.lock is committed. `SeverityScore(c,h,m,l, normalizer 8.0)`. NotApplicable only when NO ecosystem is readable; if any applicable ecosystem could not be scanned the findings are REPORTED and the score is withheld. Supersedes the npm and OSV arms, retired 2026-09-05.

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

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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 1 low.

REDACTED

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness9.3 / 10Adequategated by 5 critical findings✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

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.

Orphaned knowledge · ×5src/EFCore.Design/Query/Internal/CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs
Further orphaned files (smaller)

What to do

  1. 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).
  2. Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling9.9 / 10Adequategated by 1 critical finding✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

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

Strongest change-coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs↔SqlServerEventId.cs 100%; CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs↔MigrationsCodeGenerator.cs 83%; CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs↔SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs 82%

Boundary-crossing change coupling: CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs ↔ RelationalValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cssrc/EFCore.Cosmos/Query/Internal/CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs
Change coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs ↔ SqlServerEventId.cs · ×7src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs

What to do

  1. 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).
  2. 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).

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

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

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

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (.github/SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

D43 · Malicious Dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependency the repository declares is published as MALICIOUS rather than merely vulnerable — a package that is an attacker's work, in any ecosystem osv-scanner reads. Scored apart from D30 because the answer is binary: there is no safe version to upgrade to, and the fix is to remove the package and rotate every credential it could have read.

Method: The same dependency scan D30 reads, partitioned on the scanner's own classification rather than rescanned: a row is MALICIOUS when its id is in the `MAL-` space (the ossf/malicious-packages feed) OR its `database_specific.cwe_ids` carries `CWE-506` ("Embedded Malicious Code"). Both channels are structural; the summary text is deliberately NOT read, because a malicious-package record whose summary says only "Critical severity vulnerability" is a real shape ([GHSA redacted]) and a text matcher misses it. Scored BINARY: any surviving row is 0, whatever its severity and however many CVEs sit beside it — a hostile dependency is not a quantity. Applicability and degradation are D30's: NotApplicable only when no ecosystem is readable, and an unscannable ecosystem degrades rather than reading clean. SCORED, not informational.

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

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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d43_recommendation.md.

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

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

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.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

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

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

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code, 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 cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

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

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

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, guards that return what the code already falls through to, tests an earlier guard already decided, comparisons against NaN, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×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)7.2 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 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 documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no 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 structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M4 · Documentation accuracy5.0 / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

  • README 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 gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

P3 · Security & performance tooling8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • <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 & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • 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 Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

What to do

  • Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `ArgumentNullException` tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a plugin lookup names the type it means — searching every assembly loaded into the process for a candidate whose SIMPLE name equals a string supplied at runtime, and taking the first one found, is decided by assembly LOAD ORDER rather than by this source, so the same name can resolve to a different type on the next run.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every invocation of `First`/`FirstOrDefault`/`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` whose OWN expression subtree contains both a `GetAssemblies()` call and a `GetTypes()`/`GetExportedTypes()` call — a single-element pick out of every type loaded into the process. A nested selector in the same chain sees no `GetAssemblies()` in its own subtree and is outside the population, so one lookup counts once however many links its chain has. A finding additionally needs both remaining halves: the selector must be `First`/`FirstOrDefault` (`Single`/`SingleOrDefault` reports the ambiguity rather than resolving it, and is counted and never reported), and the chain must carry an `==` comparison of `<lambda parameter>.Name` against something that is not a literal. The receiver must be a plain identifier bound by one of the chain’s own lambdas, which places `assembly.GetName().Name == "X"` outside the rule by construction. One exemption: a `.Name` test joined by `&&` to a `FullName`/`AssemblyQualifiedName` test on the same identifier is spared; joined by `||` it is not. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

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

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

Reference — by lens

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

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Architecture93%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity49%Weak — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness70%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Security75%Adequate — gated by D29, D36Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

  • 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

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

  • 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

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

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • 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)

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

Critical — 37 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×27
  • 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
  • + 2 more in this group — see findings.md.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Orphaned knowledge · ×5
  • Orphaned knowledge src/EFCore.Design/Query/Internal/CSharpToLinqTranslator.cs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Query/OperatorsProceduralQueryTestBase.cs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Update/StoredProcedureUpdateTestBase.cs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/AdHocAdvancedMappingsQueryTestBase.cs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away, so if it breaks, no one currently understands it. It does carry its own tests, so the behaviour is pinned even though the understanding is gone: schedule a read-through, using those tests as the specification, before the next change lands here.
  • Orphaned knowledge src/EFCore.Relational/Query/Internal/GroupBySingleQueryingEnumerable.cs — No living knowledge remains for this large file — its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
P3 · Security & performance tooling · NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) · ×2
  • NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) test/Directory.Build.props:8 — <NuGetAudit>false</NuGetAudit> in MSBuild suppresses NuGet's vulnerability audit project-wide.
  • NuGet vulnerability audit disabled (csproj) benchmark/Directory.Build.props:6 — <NuGetAudit>false</NuGetAudit> in MSBuild suppresses NuGet's vulnerability audit project-wide.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1
  • No assertions (empty test): Index_lifts_earlier_args_if_later_arg_is_lifted test/EFCore.Design.Tests/Query/LinqToCSharpSyntaxTranslatorTest.cs:1348 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
D28 · Secrets (history) · REDACTED secret · ×1
  • REDACTED
D35 · Change Coupling · Boundary-crossing change coupling · ×1
  • Boundary-crossing change coupling: CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs ↔ RelationalValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs src/EFCore.Cosmos/Query/Internal/CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs — `src/EFCore.Cosmos/Query/Internal/CosmosValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs` (context EFCore.Cosmos) and `src/EFCore.Relational/Query/Internal/RelationalValueConverterCompensatingExpressionVisitor.cs` (context EFCore.Relational) sit in DIFFERENT parts of the tree yet change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets) — the bounded-context boundary may be in the wrong place, or one context is leaking into the other. This is the behavioural boundary violation a static scan can't see. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 6 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `b02d3e61` Fix incorrect compensation for bool with value converter in CASE. (#3…; `84902712` Query: Introduce UpdateQueryExpression on ShapedQueryExpression (#27824); `bfd6f04e` Static analysis: remove trailing commas (#26906) — run `git show` on any of them.
Serious — 476 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×282
  • Skipped test: Fixup_ignores_eagerly_initialized_reference_navs test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/OverzealousInitializationCosmosTest.cs:9 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Find_base_type_using_derived_set_tracked test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:12 — Skipped — #25886
  • Skipped test: Find_base_type_using_derived_set_tracked_async test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:15 — Skipped — #25886
  • Skipped test: Find_derived_using_base_set_type_from_store test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:19 — Skipped — #25886
  • Skipped test: Find_derived_using_base_set_type_from_store_async test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/FindCosmosTest.cs:22 — Skipped — #25886
  • Skipped test: Can_update_dependents test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/EmbeddedDocumentsTest.cs:22 — Skipped — Issue #17670
  • Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_string_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:22 — Skipped — Issue #16920
  • Skipped test: Can_query_and_update_with_nullable_converter_on_primary_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:30 — Skipped — Issue #16920
  • Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_binary_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:34 — Skipped — Issue #16920
  • Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_case_insensitive_string_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:38 — Skipped — Issue #16920
  • Skipped test: Can_read_back_mapped_enum_from_collection_first_or_default test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:46 — Skipped — Issue #17670
  • Skipped test: Can_read_back_bool_mapped_as_int_through_navigation test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:58 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Value_conversion_is_appropriately_used_for_join_condition test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:62 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Value_conversion_is_appropriately_used_for_left_join_condition test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:66 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Any test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/ConcurrencyDetectorEnabledCosmosTest.cs:55 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Any test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/ConcurrencyDetectorDisabledCosmosTest.cs:10 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_string_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:17 — Skipped — Issue #16920
  • Skipped test: Can_insert_and_read_back_with_binary_key test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:21 — Skipped — Issue #16920
  • Skipped test: Can_read_back_mapped_enum_from_collection_first_or_default test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:29 — Skipped — Issue #17670
  • Skipped test: Can_read_back_bool_mapped_as_int_through_navigation test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:33 — Skipped — Issue #17246
  • Skipped test: Custom_naming_projection_everything test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:306 — Skipped — issue #34350
  • Skipped test: Group_by_FirstOrDefault_on_json_scalar test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:408 — Skipped — issue #17313
  • Skipped test: Group_by_First_on_json_scalar test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:412 — Skipped — issue #17313
  • Skipped test: Group_by_json_scalar_Orderby_json_scalar_FirstOrDefault test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:416 — Skipped — issue #17313
  • Skipped test: Group_by_json_scalar_Skip_First_project_json_scalar test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/JsonQueryCosmosTest.cs:420 — Skipped — issue #17313
  • + 257 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×180
  • No assertions: Project_all_types_entity_with_missing_scalars test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/AdHocMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:13 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: On_methods_are_noops_when_null test/EFCore.Design.Tests/Design/OperationReportHandlerTest.cs:12 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: OperationException_exposes_public_empty_constructor test/EFCore.Design.Tests/Design/OperationExceptionTest.cs:8 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: BeginTransaction_can_be_used_after_another_transaction_if_connection_closed test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/TransactionTestBase.cs:1115 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AddColumnOperation_without_column_type test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:32 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_unicode_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:55 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_fixed_length_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:67 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_maxLength_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:94 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AddColumnOperation_with_precision_and_scale_no_model test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:119 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AddForeignKeyOperation_without_principal_columns test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:131 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: AlterColumnOperation_without_column_type test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:141 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: RenameTableOperation_legacy test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:151 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: RenameTableOperation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:161 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: SqlOperation test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:173 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: InsertDataOperation_all_args_spatial test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:216 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:240 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:251 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: InsertDataOperation_required_args_multiple_rows test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:262 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_all_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:359 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_all_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:370 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_required_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:384 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: DeleteDataOperation_required_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:395 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:447 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_composite test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:460 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • No assertions: UpdateDataOperation_all_args_composite_multi test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Migrations/MigrationsSqlGeneratorTestBase.cs:473 — This method's body runs code, and no assertion call was recognised in it. Recognised by name: Assert*, *Should*/ShouldBe*, Verify, Expect, Throws, Record, Received/DidNotReceive, MustHaveHappened/MustNotHaveHappened, EnsureSuccessStatusCode and *AndEnsure* — so verification routed through a helper of your own naming, through a base-class or callback object whose members hold the assertions, or through a harness that fails by throwing under some other name, is not visible to this check and is not counted here. Read it as 'no assertion this check knows how to see', and if that is right, add one.
  • + 155 more in this group — see findings.md.
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×7
  • Change coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs ↔ SqlServerEventId.cs src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs — `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs` and `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/SqlServerEventId.cs` change together 100% of the time (10 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `29d5f60b` Update SQL Server VECTOR_SEARCH() support with WithApproximate LINQ o…; `63f9baa1` Allow using foreign keys in Dataverse reverse engineering (#34689); `50fc45d1` Bring JSON type out of experimental status (#36442) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs ↔ MigrationsCodeGenerator.cs src/EFCore.Design/Migrations/Design/CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs — `src/EFCore.Design/Migrations/Design/CSharpSnapshotGenerator.cs` and `src/EFCore.Design/Migrations/Design/MigrationsCodeGenerator.cs` change together 83% of the time (10 of the 12 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9fdf1c43` Upgrade the snapshot when rolling back to a migration from a previous…; `e16a0579` Generate the correct type in snapshot when a property has a value con…; `595974e3` Preserve the null table mapping in migration snapshot when an entity … — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs ↔ SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs src/EFCore.Cosmos/Infrastructure/Internal/CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs — `src/EFCore.Cosmos/Infrastructure/Internal/CosmosDbOptionExtension.cs` and `src/EFCore.Cosmos/Storage/Internal/SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs` change together 82% of the time (9 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 9 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f564ef9a` Add Cosmos bulk execution (#37033); `404fca5d` Allow to configure Cosmos without specifying connection details. (#32…; `e859ae71` Cosmos: Add a way to configure Application Preferred Regions — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: CosmosSingletonOptions.cs ↔ SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs src/EFCore.Cosmos/Infrastructure/Internal/CosmosSingletonOptions.cs — `src/EFCore.Cosmos/Infrastructure/Internal/CosmosSingletonOptions.cs` and `src/EFCore.Cosmos/Storage/Internal/SingletonCosmosClientWrapper.cs` change together 73% of the time (8 of the 11 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 8 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `f564ef9a` Add Cosmos bulk execution (#37033); `e859ae71` Cosmos: Add a way to configure Application Preferred Regions; `b85b83f3` Support AAD RBAC via TokenCredential (#28644) — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs ↔ SqlServerMigrationsSqlGenerator.cs src/EFCore.SqlServer/Metadata/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs — `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Metadata/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs` and `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Migrations/SqlServerMigrationsSqlGenerator.cs` change together 55% of the time (11 of the 20 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 11 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9bdedb0e` Allow configuring SQL Server temporal table period columns as not hid…; `e72cb674` Implement support for SQL Server vector indexes (#37538); `745536b8` Fix to #11502 - Allow to specify constraint name for default values — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: SqlServerAnnotationCodeGenerator.cs ↔ SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs src/EFCore.SqlServer/Design/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationCodeGenerator.cs — `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Design/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationCodeGenerator.cs` and `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Metadata/Internal/SqlServerAnnotationProvider.cs` change together 50% of the time (10 of the 20 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 10 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `9bdedb0e` Allow configuring SQL Server temporal table period columns as not hid…; `29c055eb` Default constraint name PR feedback: • Add model builder extention me…; `745536b8` Fix to #11502 - Allow to specify constraint name for default values — run `git show` on any of them.
  • Change coupling: SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs ↔ REDACTED src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs — `src/EFCore.SqlServer/Diagnostics/Internal/SqlServerLoggingDefinitions.cs` and `REDACTED` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well, and counted over this repository's 10,000 most recent commits rather than its whole history — a repo-wide or module-wide sweep is evidence about the sweep rather than about any pair inside it and is left out of BOTH sides of this ratio, while a dependency bump, a formatter/rename sweep, or a commit whose edit to one of the two files was a tool directive such as //go:generate or whitespace only is left out of the shared count ONLY, so the two sides are not taken over identical commit sets). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking. You can check this without leaving the row: of the 5 shared commits counted here, the most recent 3 are `63f9baa1` Allow using foreign keys in Dataverse reverse engineering (#34689); `98a11532` Log warning when credentials used for reverse enigineering does not h…; `85e064ca` SqlServer: Ignore Fks whose principal table data is not found (#25852) — run `git show` on any of them.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×4
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
  • REDACTED
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up — 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.
M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1
  • README may be stale — 1140 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.
P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1
  • Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
Minor — 24 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×5
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 27 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/EFCore/Metadata/Builders/EntityTypeBuilder`.cs, test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding/ModelBuilderTest.ComplexCollections.cs, test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/TransactionTestBase.cs, src/EFCore/Metadata/Builders/ComplexPropertyBuilder.cs, src/EFCore/Metadata/Builders/ComplexCollectionBuilder.cs, test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/ModelBuilding/ModelBuilderTest.Inheritance.cs, src/EFCore/Metadata/Builders/ComplexPropertyBuilder`.cs, src/EFCore/Metadata/Builders/ComplexCollectionBuilder`.cs (+19 more). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2 — If anonymized user #2 becomes unavailable, 6 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/EFCore.SqlServer/Extensions/SqlServerQueryableExtensions.cs, test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/Translations/MathTranslationsTestBase.cs, src/EFCore.Relational/Query/Internal/RelationalParameterProcessor.cs, src/EFCore.Cosmos/Query/Internal/Expressions/SourceExpression.cs, src/EFCore.SqlServer/Infrastructure/Internal/SqlServerSingletonOptions.cs, src/EFCore.Relational/Extensions/RelationalDbFunctionsExtensions.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #3 — If anonymized user #3 becomes unavailable, 5 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/EFCore.Relational/Storage/RelationalSqlGenerationHelper.cs, src/EFCore/Storage/ValueConversion/Internal/StringDateTimeOffsetConverter.cs, src/EFCore/Storage/ValueConversion/Internal/StringDateOnlyConverter.cs, src/EFCore/Storage/ValueConversion/Internal/StringDateTimeConverter.cs, src/EFCore/Storage/Json/JsonWarningEnumReaderWriter.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #4 — If anonymized user #4 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/EFCore/ChangeTracking/Internal/EntityReferenceMap.cs, test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/Translations/Temporal/DateTimeTranslationsTestBase.cs, src/EFCore/Query/TransparentIdentifierFactory.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #5 — If anonymized user #5 becomes unavailable, 3 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/EFCore.Cosmos/Extensions/CosmosServiceCollectionExtensions.cs, src/EFCore.Cosmos/Storage/Internal/ISessionTokenStorage.cs, src/EFCore.Cosmos/Storage/Internal/ICosmosTransactionalBatchWrapper.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Documentation · ×2
  • Documentation: no architecture or design documentation src/EFCore.SqlServer.HierarchyId/README.md — The HierarchyId usage section is a concrete example but there are no architecture or design docs describing the provider's role in EF Core and its relationships to other providers. Add an Architecture/Design doc covering provider-level dependencies, versioning, and how HierarchyId fits into the broader relational provider model.
  • Documentation: no architecture or design documentation src/EFCore.SqlServer.Abstractions/README.md — The package is a dependency of the main SqlServer package but there are no architecture/design docs describing its role or relationships to other packages. Add an Architecture/Design doc explaining the abstractions package's purpose and how it interacts with the main SqlServer package.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs · Commented-out code · ×2
  • Commented-out code src/Shared/EnumerableMethods.cs:571 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
  • Commented-out code src/Shared/EnumerableMethods.cs:577 — A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers).
M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×2
  • README/code drift — 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/code drift — 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.
D16 · Bus Factor · Further sole-owners (lower concentration) · ×1
  • Further sole-owners (lower concentration) — 10 other contributor(s) are each the sole owner of a small amount of code below the off-boarding threshold — folded into the bus-factor score and metrics (65 single-owned of 2104 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 2104 of the 3763 production source files in this repository met that bar). They are anonymized user #6 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #7 (2 file(s)), anonymized user #8 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #9 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #10 (1 file(s)), anonymized user #11 (1 file(s)) (+4 more) — spread or document their files in the same way, at lower priority than the named off-boarding risks above.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found. No recognised ADR directory (`docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`, `adr/`, `docs/rfcs/`, an `ADR0001/` folder, or their siblings) exists anywhere in this tree. What was searched, so you can tell an empty log from a search that missed one: every directory under the tree (build output, dependencies and VCS metadata excepted), for a document that is either any non-index page inside a recognised ADR directory, whatever its name and however deeply nested (`docs/adr/use-postgres.md`, `docs/adr/2024/0001-x.md`); or a file anywhere whose name is ADR-shaped (`0001-use-postgres.md`, `adr-012-caching.md`); or, when neither turned anything up, a document carrying the decision-record signature (an "Architecture Decision Record" heading, or Status / Context / Decision / Consequences as section headings). A decision log that clears none of these — unnumbered files outside any recognised directory, without those headings — is not seen by this check and this row is then wrong. If that is your case, say so rather than renaming anything; otherwise, consider recording architectural decisions in `docs/adr/`.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • REDACTED
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Low IaC · ×1
  • REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Further orphaned files (smaller) · ×1
  • Further orphaned files (smaller) — 146 smaller file(s) also have no living knowledge — folded into the freshness score and metrics rather than raised one row each — most significant first: test/EFCore.Specification.Tests/Query/Inheritance/InheritanceQueryFixtureBase.cs, test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/TestModels/OptionalDependent/OptionalDependentData.cs, src/EFCore.Design/Query/Internal/QueryLocator.cs, src/EFCore.SqlServer/Query/Internal/SearchConditionConverter.cs, test/EFCore.Relational.Specification.Tests/Update/StoreValueGenerationTestBase.cs, src/EFCore.SqlServer/Metadata/Internal/SqlServerFullTextCatalog.cs, src/EFCore.Design/Scaffolding/Internal/TextTemplatingEngineHost.cs, src/EFCore/Query/LiftableConstantExpressionHelpers.cs (and 138 more) (151 orphaned of 2148 analysed files in total, counted over production source files of roughly 2,400 bytes or more, excluding vendored, generated and example/demo trees and test files identified by path convention, largest first; 2148 of the 3763 production source files in this repository met that bar). Attach the read to the next change that touches one of them: have a second person review that change, and leave behind a short comment or test recording what the file is for, so the knowledge comes back at the cost of a change you were making anyway.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1
  • REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation · No ADRs · ×1
  • No ADRs — 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.
M2 · Architecture documentation · No architecture diagram/doc · ×1
  • No architecture diagram/doc — 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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback · No release approval gate · ×1
  • No release approval gate — 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1
  • No changelog — 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.)
Minor — 88 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×88
  • Skipped (documented): Binding_interceptors_are_used_by_queries test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:43 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #33600 - flaky test
  • Skipped (documented): Multiple_materialization_interceptors_can_be_used test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:47 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #33600 - flaky test
  • Skipped (documented): Intercept_query_materialization_for_empty_constructor test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:51 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #33600 - flaky test
  • Skipped (documented): Intercept_query_materialization_for_full_constructor test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/MaterializationInterceptionCosmosTest.cs:55 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #33600 - flaky test
  • Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_inline_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:14 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #17246 No Explicit Convert
  • Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_captured_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:18 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #17246 No Explicit Convert
  • Skipped (documented): Can_query_and_update_with_conversion_for_custom_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:26 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #17246 No Explicit Convert
  • Skipped (documented): Can_insert_and_query_struct_to_string_converter_for_pk test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/CustomConvertersCosmosTest.cs:42 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #17246 No Explicit Convert
  • Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_inline_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:9 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #17246 No Explicit Convert
  • Skipped (documented): Can_filter_projection_with_captured_enum_variable test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/BuiltInDataTypesCosmosTest.cs:13 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Issue #17246 No Explicit Convert
  • Skipped (documented): Where_subquery_closure_via_query_cache test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindWhereQueryCosmosTest.cs:500 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Always uses sync code.
  • Skipped (documented): VisitLambda_should_not_be_visited_trivially test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:1821 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Always does sync evaluation.
  • Skipped (documented): List_from_result_of_single_result test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:2115 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Cross collection join Issue#17246
  • Skipped (documented): List_from_result_of_single_result_2 test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:2119 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Cross collection join Issue#17246
  • Skipped (documented): List_from_result_of_single_result_3 test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindSelectQueryCosmosTest.cs:2123 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Cross collection join Issue#17246
  • Skipped (documented): Where_subquery_expression test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:1532 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Always does sync evaluation.
  • Skipped (documented): Where_subquery_expression_same_parametername test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindMiscellaneousQueryCosmosTest.cs:1552 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Always does sync evaluation.
  • Skipped (documented): OrderBy_Distinct test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/NorthwindAggregateOperatorsQueryCosmosTest.cs:1487 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Fails on emulator https://github.com/Azure/azure-cosmos-dotnet-v3/issues/4339
  • Skipped (documented): Ordinal_owned_collection_concat_returns_same test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/CosmosNoTrackingWithIdentityResolutionProjectionTest.cs:363 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: Fails on main, and also: #37954
  • Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_property_in_nested_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:786 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: #17313 Cosmos: Translate GroupBy
  • Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:797 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: #17313 Cosmos: Translate GroupBy
  • Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_nested_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:808 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: #17313 Cosmos: Translate GroupBy
  • Skipped (documented): Entity_with_complex_type_with_group_by_and_first test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeToJsonPropertyQueryCosmosTest.cs:819 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: #17313 Cosmos: Translate GroupBy
  • Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_property_in_nested_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeQueryCosmosTest.cs:490 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: #17313 Cosmos: Translate GroupBy
  • Skipped (documented): GroupBy_over_complex_type test/EFCore.Cosmos.FunctionalTests/Query/ComplexTypeQueryCosmosTest.cs:501 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: #17313 Cosmos: Translate GroupBy
  • + 63 more in this group — see findings.md.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)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 .0artifacts/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 .0artifacts/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 .31artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesnuget—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 scan0—
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy config --format json --quiet .1artifacts/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 Confinementruntime-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 Confinementruntime-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 Enforcementruntime-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 Dependenciesnuget—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 scan0—
D43 · Malicious Dependenciestrivy—trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update0artifacts/raw/trivy-fs.json

Run 01a0cb89-6c38-7f68-bb35-35f123dede1c · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

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

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