Public report — wpf, published 5 Aug 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdogby Canine Development 05-08-2026 @ 14:46 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Dotnet/wpf

No baseline yet — first run knowledge concentrated in recent work
69% Adequate
CriticalWeakAdequateStrongExemplary
upper third — near Strong
Architecture 93% Exemplary Security 77% Strong Maturity 69% Adequate Readiness 62% Adequate

Large · 428,811 LoC · 92 projects · rebuild ~21.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (62%)

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

21/23dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 2 LLM-assisted, advisory
32findings with an exact file:lineof 43 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
23/95dimensions across the health lenses428811 LoC · 92 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

dotnet/wpf is sound in substance but carries real gaps (69%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.

It is strongest in Architecture (93%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (77%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (62%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (69%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped… (Release Hygiene); 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality (ADR Quality).

For scale: Large (~428,811 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~21.1 person-years (~12–41 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.

Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.

Architecture 93% ★ Exemplary Maturity 69% Adequate · gated by M2 Readiness 62% Adequate · gated by P3 Security 77% Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 62% · 50% weightMaturity 69% · 27% weightSecurity 77% · 15% weightArchitecture 93% · 8% weight

Raise Readiness 62 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 69 → ~72.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 11%Plumbing 19%Tests 71%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,000,000–€5,100,000
Cost to rebuild€1,000,000–€5,100,000 (10.0–32.2 person-years (16,812–54,053 h), ~12–41 engineers)
Domain complexityStandard — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor1.0× (at 69% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeLarge · 45% boilerplate · 18% straight-line · 36% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~21.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€3,100,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 62% — 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 1.0× 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.
+5.2 pts · Low effort · ADR Quality
2
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
+8.6 pts · Medium effort · Security & performance tooling
3
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
+8.6 pts · Medium effort · Release Hygiene

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Large asset (~21.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 62%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Large, ~21.1 person-years rebuild (428,811 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 62%
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.

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 __more__ +15 more contexts

At a glance — Architecture · 93% · Exemplary

The Good
D35 · Python Change Coupling 10.0 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 10.0 AX8 · Repo Test isolation 10.0
The Bad
D5 · Python Coupling 6.9

At a glance — Maturity · 69% · Adequate · gated by M2

The Good
D16 · Python Bus Factor 10.0 D19 · Python Documentation Quality 8.0 D21 · Python Naming Consistency 10.0 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 10.0
The Bad
M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 6.7
The Ugly
D20 · Python ADR Quality 0.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 3.0

At a glance — Readiness · 62% · Adequate · gated by P3

The Good
D9 · Python Test Distribution 10.0 D10 · Python Test Quality 9.9 D13 · Python Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0
The Bad
P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0
The Ugly
P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 3.0

At a glance — Security · 77% · Strong

The Good
D29 · Python Static Analysis (SAST) 7.1 D37 · Python Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 10.0
The Bad
D28 · Python Secrets (history) 6.0

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
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures5High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection2High / Critical

Roadmap

First, integrate a security and performance tooling step, such as CodeQL or Semgrep, into the CI pipeline to fail the build on regressions. Next, maintain a changelog to record each release and resolve the missing architecture decision records by documenting significant design choices. Finally, add a testing section to the root README to clarify how to run the test suite.

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.+5.2 ptsLowADR Quality
Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.+8.6 ptsMediumSecurity & performance tooling
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+8.6 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with XamlServicesTests.cs.+4.2 ptsLowTest Quality
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.+5.2 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).+5.2 ptsMediumArchitecture documentation
Resolve the 1 The command-line argument parser example uses wc.exe with /lines and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with readme.txt.+1.8 ptsLowDocumentation Quality
Resolve the 4 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with DocumentSignatureManager.cs (2), KeyInterop.cs (2).+1.6 ptsLowSecrets (history)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 19 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 53% mixed · 47% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/PresentationUI/MS/Internal/documents/DocumentSignatureManager.cs5.8MixedSecrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WindowsBase/System/Windows/Input/KeyInterop.cs5.8MixedSecrets (history): Secret: generic-api-key
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Interop/ComponentDispatcherTests.cs7.2MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: PushModal_InvokeMultipleTimes_Success
.github/workflows/locker.yml7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/PresentationFramework/MS/Internal/DataStreams.cs7.2MixedStatic Analysis (SAST): High: insecure-binaryformatter-deserialization
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/SplashScreenTests.cs7.4MixedTest Quality: Skipped test: Show_NoSuchResource_ThrowsMissingManifestResourceException
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherSynchronizationContextTests.cs7.4MixedTest Quality: No assertions: Ctor_Default
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherPriorityAwaiterTests.cs7.4MixedTest Quality: No assertions: GetResult_InvokeWithDispatcher_Nop
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Xaml/XamlWriterSettingsTests.cs7.8MixedTest Quality: No assertions: Ctor_Default
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/DependencyPropertyKeyTests.cs7.8MixedTest Quality: No assertions: OverrideMetadata_InvokeSuper_Success
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/IntegrationTests/DRT/DrtXaml/DrtXaml/Tests/Xaml/XamlServicesTests.cs8.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions (empty test): LoadFile
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/IntegrationTests/DRT/DrtXaml/DrtXaml/Tests/BamlTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: TestInvalidBindingPathReference
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/XamlSetValueEventArgsTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: CallBase_Invoke_Nop
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/XamlSetTypeConverterEventArgsTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: CallBase_Invoke_Nop
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/XamlSetMarkupExtensionEventArgsTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: CallBase_Invoke_Nop
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/WhitespaceSignificantCollectionAttributeTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Ctor_Default
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/TrimSurroundingWhitespaceAttributeTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Ctor_Default
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Security/RightsManagement/PublishLicenseTests.cs8.5Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: DecryptUnsignedPublishLicense_Invoke_Success
src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WpfGfx/codegen/mcg/main/cmdline/readme.txt9.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: The command-line argument parser example uses wc.exe with /lines and /files:foo, but the generated code is a C# class whose fields are validated by ParseCommandLineArguments(). The visible portion does not show how to parse an actual type.

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. 21 of 23 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.4 — 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 — 23 dimensions across the health lenses
D5D9D10D13D16D19D20D21D28D29D35D37AX3AX4AX8M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6

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, 32 of 43 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication—✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.302✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.302✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivySecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019fd264-2c19-75b0-a6e6-bf57c3c40bd2.

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.

  • D18 Solution Shape — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.

Repo exclusion declarations: 1 pattern(s) declared (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code) excluded 0 source file(s) from code-quality scoring. Declarations are the repo's own visible statement that a tree is machine-written or vendored — auditable in any diff, honored by GitHub the same way.

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.
  • 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.
  • 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").
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • 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 (4): D19, D20, D21, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

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

92 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.

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

3195 test methods: 3195 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Tests co-located / outside the solution

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test Quality9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

2 skipped, 23 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 3195 tests.

No assertions (empty test): LoadFilesrc/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/IntegrationTests/DRT/DrtXaml/DrtXaml/Tests/Xaml/XamlServicesTests.cs:47
No assertions: TestInvalidBindingPathReference · ×22src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/IntegrationTests/DRT/DrtXaml/DrtXaml/Tests/BamlTests.cs:118
Skipped test: Show_NoSuchResource_ThrowsMissingManifestResourceException · ×2src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/SplashScreenTests.cs:65

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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 Factor10.0 / 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 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WindowsBase/MS/Internal/WeakEventTable.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Strong◐ 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 documentation is comprehensive and well-structured for a WPF framework project. It includes an excellent README covering WPF's purpose, rendering advantages, supported .NET versions, roadmap link, WinForms coexistence note, build/contribution guidance, and a dedicated Packaging section listing templates with install/run steps. A separate packaging readme explains the template structure and testing process. The Fluent theme guide is long (1400 words) and covers both ResourceDictionary-based application-wide enablement and experimental ThemeMode APIs while noting the experimental status and gaps. There are several clipped sections in the middle of the document, but every named section exists within the visible portion.

The command-line argument parser example uses wc.exe with /lines and /files:foo, but the generated code is a C# class whose fields are validated by ParseCommandLineArguments(). The visible portion does not show how to parse an actual type.src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WpfGfx/codegen/mcg/main/cmdline/readme.txt

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 The command-line argument parser example uses wc.exe with /lines and… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with readme.txt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D20 · ADR Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

No architecture decision records were found.

No ADRs found

What to do

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

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

Maturity: 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)6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 6.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

4 finding(s): 0 critical, 4 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.

Secret: generic-api-key · ×4src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/PresentationUI/MS/Internal/documents/DocumentSignatureManager.cs:509detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with DocumentSignatureManager.cs (2), KeyInterop.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 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)7.1 / 10Strong✓ 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 7.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag · ×2.github/workflows/locker.yml:25detected by semgrep finding

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with locker.yml, DataStreams.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).

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

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ 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; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

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

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.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 (SECURITY.md) is published with a reporting contact.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

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.

AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

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

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

What to do

  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.

What to do

  • Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
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 accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

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

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

P3 · Security & performance tooling3.0 / 10Weak✓ 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.

  • No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.

What to do

  • Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: CodeQL's csharp pack (it analyses VB.NET too), or a security analyzer package — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ 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.

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.

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
Architecture93%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity69%Adequate — gated by M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness62%Adequate — gated by P3Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security77%StrongSolid.
Not included — 72 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
  • AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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
  • 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 — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface 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
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
  • AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
  • C1 Data Protection — 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.
  • 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.
  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.cs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget)
  • D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
  • 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 — Most of this repository's production source (.cs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.cs, .py, .vb) 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 — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. 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.
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — 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 for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness — knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
  • D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
  • D4 Code Duplication — Most of this repository's production source (.cs) was not read by duplication detection, so code duplication was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's duplication. Not scored: no source of those file kinds was exposed to the token comparison by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
  • D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — No production classes were analyzable, so cohesion (LCOM4) was not measured (the solution likely failed to load or has no production code).
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Code Coverage not included (time budget)
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
  • GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
  • IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read 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
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — 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.
  • 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.
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not 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) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
  • 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.
  • X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read 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
  • X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read 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
  • X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read 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
  • X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read 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
  • X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read 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

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 8 finding(s)
D28 · Secrets (history) · Secret · ×4
  • Secret: generic-api-key src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/PresentationUI/MS/Internal/documents/DocumentSignatureManager.cs:509 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
  • Secret: generic-api-key src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WindowsBase/System/Windows/Input/KeyInterop.cs:571 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
  • Secret: generic-api-key src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WindowsBase/System/Windows/Input/KeyInterop.cs:575 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
  • Secret: generic-api-key src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/PresentationUI/MS/Internal/Documents/DocumentSignatureManager.cs:490 — matched rule 'generic-api-key'
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · High · ×2
  • High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/locker.yml:25 — GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
  • High: insecure-binaryformatter-deserialization src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/PresentationFramework/MS/Internal/DataStreams.cs:389 — The BinaryFormatter type is dangerous and is not recommended for data processing. Applications should stop using BinaryFormatter as soon as possible, even if they believe the data they're processing to be trustworthy. BinaryFormatter is insecure and can't be made secure
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions (empty test) · ×1
  • No assertions (empty test): LoadFile src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/IntegrationTests/DRT/DrtXaml/DrtXaml/Tests/Xaml/XamlServicesTests.cs:47 — Test method has an empty body — it asserts nothing and exercises no code.
D18 · Solution Shape · Dimension evaluation failed · ×1
  • Dimension evaluation failed — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so solution shape could not be assessed
Warning — 24 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×22
  • No assertions: TestInvalidBindingPathReference src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/IntegrationTests/DRT/DrtXaml/DrtXaml/Tests/BamlTests.cs:118 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: CallBase_Invoke_Nop src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/XamlSetValueEventArgsTests.cs:29 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: CallBase_Invoke_Nop src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/XamlSetTypeConverterEventArgsTests.cs:34 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: CallBase_Invoke_Nop src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/XamlSetMarkupExtensionEventArgsTests.cs:31 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Default src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/WhitespaceSignificantCollectionAttributeTests.cs:10 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Default src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Windows/Markup/TrimSurroundingWhitespaceAttributeTests.cs:10 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Default src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Xaml/XamlWriterSettingsTests.cs:12 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_XamlWriterSettings src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/System.Xaml.Tests/System/Xaml/XamlWriterSettingsTests.cs:24 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: DecryptUnsignedPublishLicense_Invoke_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Security/RightsManagement/PublishLicenseTests.cs:337 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_String src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/SplashScreenTests.cs:20 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Assembly_String src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/SplashScreenTests.cs:28 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: OverrideMetadata_InvokeSuper_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/DependencyPropertyKeyTests.cs:10 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: OverrideMetadata_InvokeSub_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/DependencyPropertyKeyTests.cs:20 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: RaiseIdle_Invoke_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Interop/ComponentDispatcherTests.cs:145 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: RaiseThreadMessage_Invoke_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Interop/ComponentDispatcherTests.cs:181 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: PopModal_InvokeMultipleTimes_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Interop/ComponentDispatcherTests.cs:271 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Default src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherSynchronizationContextTests.cs:10 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Dispatcher src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherSynchronizationContextTests.cs:16 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Ctor_Dispatcher_DispatcherPriority src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherSynchronizationContextTests.cs:22 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: GetResult_InvokeWithDispatcher_Nop src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherPriorityAwaiterTests.cs:15 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: GetResult_InvokeDefaultAwaitable_Nop src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherPriorityAwaiterTests.cs:49 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: GetResult_InvokeDefault_Nop src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Threading/DispatcherPriorityAwaiterTests.cs:62 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×2
  • Skipped test: Show_NoSuchResource_ThrowsMissingManifestResourceException src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/SplashScreenTests.cs:65 — Skipped — Test is failing
  • Skipped test: PushModal_InvokeMultipleTimes_Success src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/tests/UnitTests/WindowsBase.Tests/System/Windows/Interop/ComponentDispatcherTests.cs:207 — Skipped — Test is failing
Recommendation — 9 finding(s)
D11 · Test Reliability · Test reliability not included · ×1
  • Test reliability not included — No test suite was found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget) · ×1
  • Dependency Hygiene not included (time budget) — Dependency Hygiene couldn't be assessed within its 5-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots · complexity unreadable for .cs · ×1
  • complexity unreadable for .cs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured — A hotspot is churn × complexity. Churn was measured (6990 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.
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 1 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner: src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WindowsBase/MS/Internal/WeakEventTable.cs. Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The command-line argument parser example uses wc.exe with /lines and /files · ×1
  • The command-line argument parser example uses wc.exe with /lines and /files:foo, but the generated code is a C# class whose fields are validated by ParseCommandLineArguments(). The visible portion does not show how to parse an actual type. src/Microsoft.DotNet.Wpf/src/WpfGfx/codegen/mcg/main/cmdline/readme.txt — Add a brief 'Parsing an Actual Type' example demonstrating field validation on a concrete class.
D20 · ADR Quality · No ADRs found · ×1
  • No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D28 · Secrets (history) · Rotate the exposed credentials · ×1
  • Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed — Some of these secrets are in git HISTORY: deleting the file does not remove them (the commit persists on every clone, fork and backup). The remediation is to ROTATE each historically-exposed credential and treat it as compromised — not to delete the file. Rewriting history is disruptive and unreliable across existing forks. (Working-tree-only secrets — no commit — can instead be removed from the file and moved to a secret store.)
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · knowledge concentrated in recent work · ×1
  • knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity — File-level freshness contradicts repo activity: 39 commits in the last 90 days, yet 929 of 938 significant files carry no living knowledge. Those two readings cannot both be true, so the per-file recency signal is treated as unreliable here and freshness is not scored for this run.
D8 · Code Coverage · Code Coverage not included (time budget) · ×1
  • Code Coverage not included (time budget) — Code Coverage couldn't be assessed within its 5-minute budget on a solution this large — not included in this run.
Info — 2 finding(s)
D22 · Internal API Consistency · No exposed public API · ×1
  • No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 · Test Distribution · Tests co-located / outside the solution · ×1
  • Tests co-located / outside the solution — 3195 test method(s) were found on disk (co-located in feature projects, or outside the analyzed solution) rather than in dedicated test projects, so the unit/integration/E2E pyramid can't be classified — they're counted as one undifferentiated suite.

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 --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .4artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrep—semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .2artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnet—dotnet: not applicable — 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 for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution0—
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivy—trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrep—semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0—
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivy—trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0—
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenance—provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).0—
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scanner—osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.0—
D40 · Network Egress 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—

Run 019fd264-2c19-75b0-a6e6-bf57c3c40bd2 · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Issues: 8 · Warnings: 24 · Recommendations: 9 · Info: 2 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 05-08-2026 @ 14:46 UTC.

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