Public report — DDD, published 19 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 19-06-2026 @ 22:08 UTC Public

Medium · 33,416 LoC · 58 projects · rebuild ~0.5 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (61%)

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

41/45dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 4 LLM-assisted, advisory
165findings with an exact file:lineof 397 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
45/91dimensions across the health lenses33416 LoC · 58 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

draphyz/DDD 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 (87%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Security (79%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Readiness (61%) — 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.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness (Knowledge Freshness); 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities (Dependency Vulnerabilities); 7 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities (Dependency Vulnerabilities).

For scale: Medium (~33,416 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.5 person-years (~1 engineer). 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.

Code composition — where the lines go Plumbing-heavy — business logic is 11% of hand-written app code; most lines are wiring, declarations and straight-line glue. Fine for an integration/CRUD service; worth a look if this is meant to be logic-rich.
Business logic 7%Plumbing 53%Tests 36%Generated 5%
New since the last scan (36+)

36 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-18) — surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Dapper(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Dapper(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core(net48) Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery(net48) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common(net48) Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.EntityFramework(net48) Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.FluentValidation(net48) Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Messages(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(net48) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common.Messages(net48) Src/DDD.Common.Messages/DDD.Common.Messages.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common.Messages(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Common.Messages/DDD.Common.Messages.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(net48) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Polly(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Polly(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Cronos(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Cronos/DDD.Core.Cronos.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Cronos(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Cronos/DDD.Core.Cronos.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation(net48) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework(net48) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.csproj
  • D19 · Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.csproj
  • ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: Prescriptions.PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.HandleAsync Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Application/Prescriptions/PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.cs
  • ED5 · Non-idempotent mutation: Prescriptions.PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.HandleAsync Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Application/Prescriptions/PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.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 — €23,000–€120,000
Cost to rebuild€23,000–€120,000 (0.2–0.7 person-years (391–1,225 h), ~1 engineer)
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 & shapeMedium · 55% boilerplate · 34% straight-line · 11% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.5 person-years of build effort (about ~€70,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 61% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Standard (×1.3) — library/CLI, DDD/clean architecture, CQRS × a 1.0× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

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

1
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
+2.5 pts · Low effort · Knowledge Freshness
2
Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.
+2.2 pts · Low effort · Dependency Vulnerabilities
3
Resolve the 7 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.
+2.0 pts · Low effort · Dependency Vulnerabilities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.5 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 61%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.5 person-years rebuild (33,416 LoC) · weakest lens: Readiness 61%
→ 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: Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+12.4 pts/run over 3 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +12.4 pts/run over 3 runs

Architecture — module dependency graph

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

arch DDD.Common Common DDD.Core Core DDD.Common->DDD.Core DDD.Core.Abstractions Abstractions DDD.Common->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Common.Messages Messages DDD.Core->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Core.Messages Messages DDD.Core->DDD.Core.Messages DDD.Core.Cronos Cronos DDD.Core.Cronos->DDD.Core DDD.Core.Dapper Dapper DDD.Core.Dapper->DDD.Core DDD.Core.Dapper->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle Oracle DDD.Core.EntityFramework EntityFramework DDD.Core.EntityFramework->DDD.Core DDD.Core.EntityFramework->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Core.EntityFramework->DDD.Core.Messages DDD.Core.FluentValidation FluentValidation DDD.Core.FluentValidation->DDD.Core DDD.Core.FluentValidation->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Core.FluentValidation->DDD.Core.Messages DDD.Core.NSubstitute NSubstitute DDD.Core.Newtonsoft Newtonsoft DDD.Core.Newtonsoft->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Core.Polly Polly DDD.Core.Polly->DDD.Core DDD.Core.Polly->DDD.Core.Messages DDD.Core.SimpleInjector SimpleInjector DDD.Core.SimpleInjector->DDD.Core DDD.Core.SimpleInjector->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.Core.SimpleInjector->DDD.Core.Messages DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework EntityFramework DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework->DDD.Core.EntityFramework DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework->DDD.Core.SimpleInjector DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation FluentValidation DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation->DDD.Core.FluentValidation DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation->DDD.Core.SimpleInjector DDD.HealthcareDelivery HealthcareDelivery DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Common DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Common.Messages DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Core DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Core.Abstractions DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Core.Dapper DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Core.EntityFramework DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Core.FluentValidation DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.Core.Messages DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages Messages DDD.HealthcareDelivery->DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages->DDD.Common.Messages DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages->DDD.Core.Messages

At a glance — Code Health · 76% · Healthy

At a glance — Architecture · 87% · Exemplary

At a glance — Maturity · 73% · Fair · gated by D34

At a glance — Readiness · 61% · Healthy

At a glance — Security · 79% · Fair · gated by D30

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
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components15High / Critical

Roadmap

Begin by addressing the dormant codebase to ensure knowledge freshness. Next, resolve all eight high-severity and seven medium-severity dependency vulnerabilities to secure the project. Then, establish a changelog to track release history. Finally, add a build and run section to the root README to help new contributors get started quickly.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+2.5 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+2.2 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 7 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+2.0 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with BelgianSocialSecurityNumberTests.cs (2), SqlServerEventConfiguration.cs.+1.3 ptsLowComment Value
Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.+1.7 ptsMediumRelease Hygiene
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.+1.7 ptsMediumDocumentation (README)
Resolve the 26 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.+1.5 ptsMediumDependency Hygiene
Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.+1.3 ptsMediumSchema migrations

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 45 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop · 24% mixed · 76% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj3.6MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj5.8MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/AppRegistrationOptions.cs6.3Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: Builder
Src/DDD.Common/Domain/Enumeration.cs6.3Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: Enumeration
Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests/Domain/Prescriptions/PrescriptionTests.cs7.0Near-cleanTest Quality: No assertions: Revoke_RevocablePrescription_AddsPrescriptionRevokedEvent
Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FlagsEnumeration.cs7.8Near-cleanGod Classes: TooManyMethods: FlagsEnumeration
Src/DDD.Core/Application/ContextualQueryProcessor.cs7.8Near-cleanCode Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)
Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainEntity.cs7.8Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: DomainEntity (LCOM4 4)
Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj7.8Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48)
Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj7.8Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Messages(net48)
Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj7.8Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(net48)

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. 41 of 45 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 4 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 45 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX10AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8AX9ED5GD1IC1M1M3M4P6P8X1X2X3X4

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, 165 of 397 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

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

Tools & methods

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

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

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee1ee-17f9-7a55-8a4c-871ae604536f.

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.

  • D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.

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

Limitations & what we did not check

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

Per-dimension blind spots

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

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
  • D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
  • D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
  • D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
  • D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
  • D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
  • D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • 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.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
  • D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
  • D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
  • D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
  • AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
  • ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
  • M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
  • P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D21, D22, D24, ED5, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ComparableValueObject.CompareTo at 17.

ComparableValueObject.CompareTo (cognitive 17)Src/DDD.Core/Domain/ComparableValueObject.cs:36

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D3 · God Classes8.7 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

9 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: EventConsumer · ×9Src/DDD.Core/Application/EventConsumer.cs:0

What to do

  1. Resolve the 9 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with AppRegistrationOptions.cs, BelgianSocialSecurityNumber.cs, ContainerExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
  2. Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

15 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncCommandHandlerWithLogging.cs:41
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3Src/DDD.Core/Application/ContextualQueryProcessor.cs:79
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandException.cs:45
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/StringExtensions.cs:77
Duplicated block (8 lines × 3)Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandInvalidException.cs:68

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D5 · Coupling8.6 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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

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

Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(net48) · ×10

What to do

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

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

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.6 / 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

6 of 174 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: DomainEntity (LCOM4 4) · ×6Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainEntity.cs:10

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

774 test methods: 688 unit, 86 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D10 · Test 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 skipped (2 with a documented reason), 2 zero-assertion, 8 mock references across 774 tests.

No assertions: Revoke_RevocablePrescription_AddsPrescriptionRevokedEvent · ×2Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests/Domain/Prescriptions/PrescriptionTests.cs:42
Mock framework: NSubstitute · ×8
Skipped (documented): CreateDatabase_DoesNotThrowException · ×2Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests/Infrastructure/DbHealthcareDeliveryContextTests.cs:41

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

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

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

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

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

0 flaky across 3 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene4.8 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 4.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

149 outdated, 4 vulnerable, 26 deprecated packages.

Vulnerable: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient · ×4
Deprecated: xunit · ×26
Outdated: FluentAssertions · ×149

What to do

  1. Resolve the 26 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (26 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 4 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
  3. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

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

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

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

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

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

0 of 21 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

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

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt8.6 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

33 deducted debt markers + 10 dead symbols across 33416 LoC (0.7/KLoC) → score 8.6.

NoWarnInCsproj · ×22Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj:9
DuplicateNoWarn · ×11Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj:13

What to do

  1. Resolve the 22 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DDD.Common.csproj (2), DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj (2), DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 11 DuplicateNoWarn finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with DDD.Common.csproj, DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj, DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 recommendation-level).
  3. Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

58 projects, 1216 .cs files, 53546 hand-written lines of code (33416 production / 20130 test), plus 2722 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 210 inter-project edges.

DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) (Production)Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj
DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1) (Production)Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj
DDD.Core.UnitTests(net48) (Test)Test/DDD.Core.UnitTests/DDD.Core.UnitTests.csproj
DDD.Core.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test)Test/DDD.Core.UnitTests/DDD.Core.UnitTests.csproj
DDD.Core.Xunit(net48) (Test)Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj

+ 53 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Poor◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

The project contains a single README file that provides a high-level overview of the Domain-Driven Design example. While it outlines the architectural patterns (DDD, CQRS, Hexagonal) and goals, it lacks critical practical information such as setup instructions, build steps, or contribution guidelines. The XML documentation coverage is extremely low across most projects, with many modules at 0-15% coverage, indicating a significant lack of inline code documentation.

Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) · ×34Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj
XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48) · ×2Src/DDD.Core.NSubstitute/DDD.Core.NSubstitute.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 34 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with DDD.Common.Messages.csproj (2), DDD.Common.csproj (2), DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (34 warning-level).

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

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

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

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

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

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

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

4 valuable / 96 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 4 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×3Test/DDD.Common.UnitTests/Domain/BelgianSocialSecurityNumberTests.cs:74

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with BelgianSocialSecurityNumberTests.cs (2), SqlServerEventConfiguration.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

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

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

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

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

2 of 58 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split DDD.Core(net48)
Split DDD.Core(netstandard2.1)

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

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

D27 · Navigability8.8 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

63 % of calls cross a namespace and 12 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

What to do

  1. Improve Navigability — currently 8.8/10. — 63 % of calls cross a namespace and 12 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

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

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

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

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

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

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities3.7 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified

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

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

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 3.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

15 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 8 high, 7 medium, 0 low.

High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 · ×8detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.1.3 · ×7detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 7 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (7 warning-level).

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

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

78 of 78 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/ContainerExtensions.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase 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 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: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · 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.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX10 · Code composition6.1 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

ED5 · Idempotency6.5 / 10Healthy◐ Sampled · advisory

Other · Readiness — Whether retry-prone mutations (command handlers + message/event consumers) are idempotent so an at-least-once redelivery or client retry doesn't double-apply the effect — heuristic at-risk detection confirmed by language model, advisory.

Method: Roslyn heuristic (any mutation, ungated): command handlers and message/event consumers that mutate persistent state without a visible idempotency guard (exists/dedup check, upsert, idempotency-key/inbox, conditional/versioned write, fixed-value set) flagged as at-risk; each at-risk candidate then confirmed or cleared by a language model as genuinely non-idempotent versus naturally-idempotent. Advisory without a model (heuristic-only, degraded), per-candidate judged with one.

Coverage: Population: retry-prone mutations — command handlers (CQRS write side) + message/event consumers (IConsumer/I*EventHandler) — that mutate persistent state; runs on any repo with mutations, not only event-driven ones. The at-risk subset (no obvious guard) is a HEURISTIC candidate set, each then LLM-JUDGED non-idempotent vs safe; a handler outside those conventions, or a guard the LLM can't confirm, is bounded by the sample. Degrades to heuristic-only when no model is configured.

  • `Prescriptions.PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.HandleAsync` mutates persistent state (a database save) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (×2) — PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.cs:61, PharmaceuticalPrescriptionCreator.cs:61

What to do

  • Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
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, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `GetResult` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. (×2) — SynchronizationContextRemover.cs:24, SynchronizationContextRemover.cs:24
  • A test is skipped ("This test recreates the database and thus can cause conflicts with other tests.") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×2) — DbHealthcareDeliveryContextTests.cs:41, DbHealthcareDeliveryContextTests.cs:41

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)6.7 / 10Healthy✓ 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 build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 29 of 29 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
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.

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Fair✓ 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.
P8 · Schema migrations6.0 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

  • EF Core is used but neither migrations nor EnsureCreated were detected — confirm how the production schema is created and evolved.

What to do

  • Adopt EF migrations (dotnet ef migrations add + Migrate() on startup) as the explicit, versioned schema strategy — no migration mechanism was detected.
X1 · Async correctness6.4 / 10Healthy✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×8) — EventConsumer.cs:98, EventConsumer.cs:109, RecurringCommandManager.cs:119, …

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation5.3 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Only 28/130 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — EventStreamPositionUpdater.cs:73, EventStreamReader.cs:69, EventStreamsFinder.cs:66, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
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.

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 Health76%HealthySolid.
Architecture87%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Maturity73%Fair — gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness61%HealthyLargest drag on the score — prioritise here.
Security79%Fair — gated by D30Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 46 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
  • AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
  • C1 Data Protection — This is a dotnet-new template — at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
  • C2 Access Controls — This is a dotnet-new template — authorization is deferred to the application you build from it. Add [Authorize]/policies (or imperative guards) when you wire up real users; until then there are no real endpoints to protect.
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
  • DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 4 domain event(s); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): 12 event handler(s); 112 CQRS handler(s)
  • ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
  • M2 Architecture documentation — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
  • P1 CI/CD gates — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Automated CI/CD gates are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
  • P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
  • P3 Security & performance tooling — This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
  • X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

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

Issue — 36 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×22
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj:9 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj:13 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj:13 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj:13 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj:10 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj:14 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj:9 — 1591
  • NoWarnInCsproj Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj:13 — 1591
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×8
  • High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0 — System.Net.Http 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 12 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 12 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.1.3 — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.1.3 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 10.0.1 — Newtonsoft.Json 10.0.1 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Oracle.ManagedDataAccess.Core 2.19.130 — Oracle.ManagedDataAccess.Core 2.19.130 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 (direct) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Azure.Identity 1.7.0 — Azure.Identity 1.7.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0 — System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Vulnerable · ×4
  • Vulnerable: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Vulnerable: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — High severity. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×2
  • No assertions: Revoke_RevocablePrescription_AddsPrescriptionRevokedEvent Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests/Domain/Prescriptions/PrescriptionTests.cs:42 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
  • No assertions: Revoke_RevocablePrescription_AddsPrescriptionRevokedEvent Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests/Domain/Prescriptions/PrescriptionTests.cs:42 — Test method has no assertions — it may not test anything.
Warning — 110 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×34
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj — DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48): 42 % XML-doc coverage (104/249).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj — DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1): 42 % XML-doc coverage (104/249).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Dapper(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj — DDD.Core.Dapper(net48): 1 % XML-doc coverage (1/84).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Dapper(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj — DDD.Core.Dapper(netstandard2.1): 1 % XML-doc coverage (1/84).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core(net48) Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj — DDD.Core(net48): 20 % XML-doc coverage (121/604).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj — DDD.Core(netstandard2.1): 20 % XML-doc coverage (121/604).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery(net48) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj — DDD.HealthcareDelivery(net48): 13 % XML-doc coverage (22/170).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj — DDD.HealthcareDelivery(netstandard2.1): 13 % XML-doc coverage (22/170).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common(net48) Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj — DDD.Common(net48): 15 % XML-doc coverage (23/153).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj — DDD.Common(netstandard2.1): 15 % XML-doc coverage (23/153).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.EntityFramework(net48) Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj — DDD.Core.EntityFramework(net48): 4 % XML-doc coverage (2/46).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj — DDD.Core.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1): 4 % XML-doc coverage (2/46).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.FluentValidation(net48) Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj — DDD.Core.FluentValidation(net48): 32 % XML-doc coverage (10/31).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj — DDD.Core.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1): 32 % XML-doc coverage (10/31).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj — DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/10).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj — DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/10).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Messages(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj — DDD.Core.Messages(net48): 6 % XML-doc coverage (10/162).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj — DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1): 6 % XML-doc coverage (10/162).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(net48) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj — DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(net48): 8 % XML-doc coverage (6/76).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj — DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(netstandard2.1): 8 % XML-doc coverage (6/76).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common.Messages(net48) Src/DDD.Common.Messages/DDD.Common.Messages.csproj — DDD.Common.Messages(net48): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Common.Messages(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Common.Messages/DDD.Common.Messages.csproj — DDD.Common.Messages(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/1).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(net48) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj — DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(net48): 26 % XML-doc coverage (11/42).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj — DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(netstandard2.1): 26 % XML-doc coverage (11/42).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.Polly(net48) Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj — DDD.Core.Polly(net48): 29 % XML-doc coverage (8/28).
  • + 9 more in this group — see findings.md.
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Deprecated · ×26
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit.core — xunit.core 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3.core >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit.core — xunit.core 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3.core >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — CriticalBugs
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — CriticalBugs
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — CriticalBugs
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.1.0 — CriticalBugs
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • Deprecated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 — Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
  • + 1 more in this group — see findings.md.
D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×10
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(net48) — DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(net48): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(netstandard2.1) — DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(netstandard2.1): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48) — DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1) — DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48) — DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1) — DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1): abstractness 0.00, instability 0.25, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Messages(net48) — DDD.Core.Messages(net48): abstractness 0.25, instability 0.00, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1) — DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1): abstractness 0.25, instability 0.00, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) — DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48): abstractness 0.26, instability 0.00, distance 0.74 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
  • Off the main sequence: DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1) — DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1): abstractness 0.26, instability 0.00, distance 0.74 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×9
  • TooManyMethods: EventConsumer Src/DDD.Core/Application/EventConsumer.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 488 lines, 42 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: ICommandProcessorExtensions Src/DDD.Core/Application/ICommandProcessorExtensions.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 252 lines, 44 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: IQueryProcessorExtensions Src/DDD.Core/Application/IQueryProcessorExtensions.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 154 lines, 32 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: Builder Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/AppRegistrationOptions.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 384 lines, 98 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: BelgianSocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.Common/Domain/BelgianSocialSecurityNumber.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 120 lines, 34 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: Enumeration Src/DDD.Common/Domain/Enumeration.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 118 lines, 34 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: FlagsEnumeration Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FlagsEnumeration.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 186 lines, 34 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: EFRepository Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/EFRepository.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 278 lines, 44 methods.
  • TooManyMethods: ContainerExtensions Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/ContainerExtensions.cs:0 — TooManyMethods — 436 lines, 46 methods.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×7
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.1.3 — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 1.1.3 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 5.5.0 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 5.5.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 5.5.0 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 5.5.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 3 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.7.0 — Azure.Identity 1.7.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.7.0 — Azure.Identity 1.7.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.24.0 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.24.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.24.0 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.24.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×6
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncCommandHandlerWithLogging.cs:41 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncCommandHandlerWithLogging.cs:41-48 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncCommandHandlerWithLogging`1.cs:49-56
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncQueryHandlerWithLogging.cs:36 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncQueryHandlerWithLogging.cs:36-43 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/AsyncQueryHandlerWithLogging`1.cs:50-57
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/SyncCommandHandlerWithLogging.cs:40 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/SyncCommandHandlerWithLogging.cs:40-47 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/SyncCommandHandlerWithLogging`1.cs:48-55
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/SyncQueryHandlerWithLogging.cs:34 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/SyncQueryHandlerWithLogging.cs:34-41 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/SyncQueryHandlerWithLogging`1.cs:48-55
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/OracleToCommandExceptionTranslator.cs:18 — Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/OracleToCommandExceptionTranslator.cs:18-25 | Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/SqlServerToCommandExceptionTranslator.cs:15-22
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/OracleToQueryExceptionTranslator.cs:18 — Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/OracleToQueryExceptionTranslator.cs:18-25 | Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/SqlServerToQueryExceptionTranslator.cs:15-22
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×6
  • Low cohesion: DomainEntity (LCOM4 4) Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainEntity.cs:10 — DomainEntity's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 4) Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/AppRegistrationOptions.cs:61 — Builder's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: DomainEntity (LCOM4 4) Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainEntity.cs:10 — DomainEntity's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Builder (LCOM4 4) Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/DependencyInjection/AppRegistrationOptions.cs:61 — Builder's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4) Src/DDD.Common/Domain/Enumeration.cs:12 — Enumeration's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4) Src/DDD.Common/Domain/Enumeration.cs:12 — Enumeration's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/ContextualQueryProcessor.cs:79 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/ContextualQueryProcessor.cs:79-85 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/QueryProcessor.cs:92-98
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/OracleToRepositoryExceptionTranslator.cs:21 — Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/OracleToRepositoryExceptionTranslator.cs:21-27 | Src/DDD.Core/Infrastructure/Data/SqlServerToRepositoryExceptionTranslator.cs:18-24
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FlagsEnumeration.cs:88 — Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FlagsEnumeration.cs:88-94 | Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FlagsEnumeration.cs:107-113
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×3
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandException.cs:45 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandException.cs:45-49 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandInvalidException.cs:60-64
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/QueryException.cs:52 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/QueryException.cs:52-56 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/QueryInvalidException.cs:60-64
  • Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainServiceException.cs:52 — Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainServiceException.cs:52-56 | Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainServiceInvalidException.cs:60-64
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/StringExtensions.cs:77 — Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/StringExtensions.cs:77-82 | Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/StringExtensions.cs:142-147
  • Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Src/DDD.Core/Application/ContextualQueryProcessor.cs:56 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/ContextualQueryProcessor.cs:56-61 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/QueryProcessor.cs:69-74
D16 · Bus Factor · single-maintainer · ×1
  • single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk (1 author(s) across 230 commit(s) sampled).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · ComparableValueObject.CompareTo (cognitive 17) · ×1
  • ComparableValueObject.CompareTo (cognitive 17) Src/DDD.Core/Domain/ComparableValueObject.cs:36 — ComparableValueObject.CompareTo has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15).
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (8 lines × 3) Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandInvalidException.cs:68 — Src/DDD.Core/Application/CommandInvalidException.cs:68-75 | Src/DDD.Core/Application/QueryInvalidException.cs:68-75 | Src/DDD.Core/Domain/DomainServiceInvalidException.cs:68-75
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured — and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation — 26 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · DuplicateNoWarn · ×11
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj:13 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj:13 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj:13 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj:14 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
  • DuplicateNoWarn Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj:13 — NoWarn 1591 is listed more than once in this project file — remove the duplicate.
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×3
  • redundant comment Test/DDD.Common.UnitTests/Domain/BelgianSocialSecurityNumberTests.cs:74 — "// Arrange" — Remove. 'Arrange' is a standard test pattern; the code structure usually makes this obvious.
  • redundant comment Test/DDD.Common.UnitTests/Domain/BelgianSocialSecurityNumberTests.cs:110 — "// Assert" — Remove. The assertion statement itself is the comment.
  • redundant comment Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/SqlServerEventConfiguration.cs:16 — "// Fields" — Remove. The code structure (e.g., a list of fields) makes this redundant.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — The codebase is large and highly modular, indicating multiple distinct concerns that require explicit boundary declarations to assess coupling risks. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D25 · ADR Conformance · no ADRs to check · ×1
  • no ADRs to check — No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split DDD.Core(net48) · ×1
  • Split DDD.Core(net48) — With 138 public types across 5 namespaces, the project likely contains multiple distinct responsibilities or domains, suggesting a need for separation. Suggested: by namespace: 5 distinct areas
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split DDD.Core(netstandard2.1) · ×1
  • Split DDD.Core(netstandard2.1) — The high count of public types across multiple namespaces indicates a lack of single-responsibility focus, warranting a split. Suggested: by namespace: 5 distinct areas
D31 · IaC & Container Security · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 78 of 78 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 78 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities · Not applicable · ×1
  • Not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 · Architectural Integrity · No checkable ADRs to assess · ×1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess — No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info — 225 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×149
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 6.9.0 → 8.10.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.6.3 → 18.6.0 available.
  • Outdated: SimpleInjector — SimpleInjector 5.4.1 → 5.5.2 available.
  • Outdated: System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions — System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions 4.5.4 → 4.6.3 available.
  • Outdated: System.ValueTuple — System.ValueTuple 4.5.0 → 4.6.2 available.
  • Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 → 2.9.3 available.
  • Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 2.4.5 → 3.1.5 available.
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 6.9.0 → 8.10.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.6.3 → 18.6.0 available.
  • Outdated: SimpleInjector — SimpleInjector 5.4.1 → 5.5.2 available.
  • Outdated: System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions — System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions 4.5.4 → 4.6.3 available.
  • Outdated: System.ValueTuple — System.ValueTuple 4.5.0 → 4.6.2 available.
  • Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 → 2.9.3 available.
  • Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio — xunit.runner.visualstudio 2.4.5 → 3.1.5 available.
  • Outdated: xunit.core — xunit.core 2.4.2 → 2.9.3 available.
  • Outdated: System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager — System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager 6.0.0 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: xunit.core — xunit.core 2.4.2 → 2.9.3 available.
  • Outdated: Dapper — Dapper 2.0.123 → 2.1.79 available.
  • Outdated: Dapper — Dapper 2.0.123 → 2.1.79 available.
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions — FluentAssertions 6.9.0 → 8.10.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 17.6.3 → 18.6.0 available.
  • Outdated: NSubstitute — NSubstitute 4.4.0 → 5.3.0 available.
  • Outdated: System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions — System.Threading.Tasks.Extensions 4.5.4 → 4.6.3 available.
  • Outdated: System.ValueTuple — System.ValueTuple 4.5.0 → 4.6.2 available.
  • Outdated: xunit — xunit 2.4.2 → 2.9.3 available.
  • + 124 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×8
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.UnitTests(net48) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.UnitTests(net6.0) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests(net48) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests(net6.0) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests(net48) references NSubstitute.
  • Mock framework: NSubstitute — DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests(net6.0) references NSubstitute.
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped (documented) · ×2
  • Skipped (documented): CreateDatabase_DoesNotThrowException Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests/Infrastructure/DbHealthcareDeliveryContextTests.cs:41 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: This test recreates the database and thus can cause conflicts with other tests.
  • Skipped (documented): CreateDatabase_DoesNotThrowException Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests/Infrastructure/DbHealthcareDeliveryContextTests.cs:41 — Skipped with a documented reason — a deferral, not lazy debt: This test recreates the database and thus can cause conflicts with other tests.
D19 · Documentation Quality · XML-doc coverage · ×2
  • XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48) Src/DDD.Core.NSubstitute/DDD.Core.NSubstitute.csproj — DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48): 50 % XML-doc coverage (1/2).
  • XML-doc coverage: DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1) Src/DDD.Core.NSubstitute/DDD.Core.NSubstitute.csproj — DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1): 50 % XML-doc coverage (1/2).
D14 · License Compliance · Licenses scanned · ×1
  • Licenses scanned — 21 packages scanned; 3 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Abstractions(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj — 73 .cs files, 2873 LoC (1914 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Abstractions(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Abstractions/DDD.Core.Abstractions.csproj — 73 .cs files, 2873 LoC (1914 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.UnitTests/DDD.Core.UnitTests.csproj — 39 .cs files, 3747 LoC (2877 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.UnitTests/DDD.Core.UnitTests.csproj — 40 .cs files, 3751 LoC (2880 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Xunit(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Xunit(net48) (Test) Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj — 6 .cs files, 237 LoC (187 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Xunit(netstandard2.1) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Xunit(netstandard2.1) (Test) Src/DDD.Core.Xunit/DDD.Core.Xunit.csproj — 6 .cs files, 237 LoC (187 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Dapper(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Dapper(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj — 21 .cs files, 2400 LoC (1800 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Dapper(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Dapper(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper/DDD.Core.Dapper.csproj — 21 .cs files, 2400 LoC (1800 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests/DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests.csproj — 14 .cs files, 1063 LoC (789 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests/DDD.Core.Abstractions.UnitTests.csproj — 15 .cs files, 1067 LoC (792 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj — 149 .cs files, 8131 LoC (5715 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core/DDD.Core.csproj — 149 .cs files, 8131 LoC (5715 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj — 47 .cs files, 2525 LoC (1891 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.csproj — 47 .cs files, 2525 LoC (1891 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Common(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Common(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj — 23 .cs files, 1354 LoC (985 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Common(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Common(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Common/DDD.Common.csproj — 23 .cs files, 1354 LoC (985 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Common.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Common.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Common.UnitTests/DDD.Common.UnitTests.csproj — 7 .cs files, 863 LoC (651 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Common.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Common.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Common.UnitTests/DDD.Common.UnitTests.csproj — 8 .cs files, 867 LoC (654 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.EntityFramework(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.EntityFramework(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj — 13 .cs files, 807 LoC (654 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.EntityFramework.csproj — 13 .cs files, 807 LoC (654 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests.csproj — 23 .cs files, 1264 LoC (880 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.IntegrationTests.csproj — 24 .cs files, 1268 LoC (883 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.FluentValidation(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.FluentValidation(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj — 12 .cs files, 466 LoC (314 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.FluentValidation.csproj — 12 .cs files, 466 LoC (314 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests.csproj — 6 .cs files, 972 LoC (705 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.UnitTests.csproj — 7 .cs files, 976 LoC (708 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj — 3 .cs files, 133 LoC (107 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Newtonsoft(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.csproj — 3 .cs files, 133 LoC (107 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Messages(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Messages(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj — 31 .cs files, 761 LoC (481 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Messages(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Messages/DDD.Core.Messages.csproj — 31 .cs files, 761 LoC (481 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj — 16 .cs files, 412 LoC (262 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages.csproj — 16 .cs files, 412 LoC (262 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Common.Messages(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Common.Messages(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Common.Messages/DDD.Common.Messages.csproj — 3 .cs files, 30 LoC (27 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Common.Messages(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Common.Messages(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Common.Messages/DDD.Common.Messages.csproj — 3 .cs files, 30 LoC (27 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj — 12 .cs files, 941 LoC (747 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.csproj — 12 .cs files, 941 LoC (747 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Polly(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Polly(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj — 10 .cs files, 406 LoC (272 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Polly(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Polly(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Polly/DDD.Core.Polly.csproj — 10 .cs files, 406 LoC (272 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests.csproj — 2 .cs files, 67 LoC (47 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests/DDD.Core.Newtonsoft.UnitTests.csproj — 3 .cs files, 71 LoC (50 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests/DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests.csproj — 54 .cs files, 3209 LoC (2209 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests/DDD.Core.Dapper.IntegrationTests.csproj — 55 .cs files, 3213 LoC (2212 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle.csproj — 3 .cs files, 51 LoC (39 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle/DDD.Core.Dapper.Oracle.csproj — 3 .cs files, 51 LoC (39 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.NSubstitute(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.NSubstitute/DDD.Core.NSubstitute.csproj — 3 .cs files, 59 LoC (46 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.NSubstitute(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.NSubstitute/DDD.Core.NSubstitute.csproj — 3 .cs files, 59 LoC (46 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Cronos(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Cronos(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Cronos/DDD.Core.Cronos.csproj — 4 .cs files, 102 LoC (78 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.Cronos(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.Cronos(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.Cronos/DDD.Core.Cronos.csproj — 4 .cs files, 102 LoC (78 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj — 3 .cs files, 54 LoC (43 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.csproj — 3 .cs files, 54 LoC (43 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests.csproj — 17 .cs files, 1031 LoC (794 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.UnitTests.csproj — 18 .cs files, 1035 LoC (797 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests.csproj — 3 .cs files, 104 LoC (79 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.FluentValidation.UnitTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 108 LoC (82 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework(net48) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework(net48) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.csproj — 3 .cs files, 76 LoC (64 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) (Production) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework(netstandard2.1) (Production) Src/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.csproj — 3 .cs files, 76 LoC (64 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests(net48) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests(net48) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests.csproj — 3 .cs files, 96 LoC (73 significant)
D18 · Solution Shape · DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) · ×1
  • DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests(net6.0) (Test) Test/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests/DDD.Core.SimpleInjector.EntityFramework.UnitTests.csproj — 4 .cs files, 100 LoC (76 significant)
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 · Unit tests · ×1
  • Unit tests — 688 unit test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · Integration tests · ×1
  • Integration tests — 86 integration test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · BDD tests · ×1
  • BDD tests — 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 · Test Distribution · E2E tests · ×1
  • E2E tests — 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

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

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list DDD.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json15artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.0
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceprovenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.0
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.0
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0

Run 019ee1ee-17f9-7a55-8a4c-871ae604536f · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C — Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data — 36 field(s) across 6 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from — right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational — it feeds no score.

Name — 12 field(s)
  • FullName.FirstName Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FullName.cs:26
  • FullName.LastName Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FullName.cs:28
  • FullNameState.FirstName Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FullNameState.cs:8
  • FullNameState.LastName Src/DDD.Common/Domain/FullNameState.cs:10
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PatientFirstName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:31
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PatientLastName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:35
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberFirstName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:49
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberLastName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:55
  • Patient.FullName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Patients/Patient.cs:41
  • PatientState.FullName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Patients/PatientState.cs:16
  • HealthcarePractitioner.FullName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Practitioners/HealthcarePractitioner.cs:45
  • HealthcarePractitionerState.FullName Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Practitioners/HealthcarePractitionerState.cs:14
Email — 6 field(s)
  • ContactInformation.PrimaryEmailAddress Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformation.cs:49
  • ContactInformation.SecondaryEmailAddress Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformation.cs:53
  • ContactInformationState.PrimaryEmailAddress Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformationState.cs:12
  • ContactInformationState.SecondaryEmailAddress Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformationState.cs:16
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberPrimaryEmailAddress Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:61
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberSecondaryEmailAddress Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:65
Government ID (SSN / passport / tax) — 6 field(s)
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PatientSocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:39
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberSocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:69
  • Patient.SocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Patients/Patient.cs:47
  • PatientState.SocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Patients/PatientState.cs:22
  • HealthcarePractitioner.SocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Practitioners/HealthcarePractitioner.cs:53
  • HealthcarePractitionerState.SocialSecurityNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Practitioners/HealthcarePractitionerState.cs:22
Phone — 6 field(s)
  • ContactInformation.PrimaryTelephoneNumber Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformation.cs:51
  • ContactInformation.SecondaryTelephoneNumber Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformation.cs:55
  • ContactInformationState.PrimaryTelephoneNumber Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformationState.cs:14
  • ContactInformationState.SecondaryTelephoneNumber Src/DDD.Common/Domain/ContactInformationState.cs:18
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberPrimaryTelephoneNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:63
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberSecondaryTelephoneNumber Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:67
Address — 3 field(s)
  • PostalAddress.PostalCode Src/DDD.Common/Domain/PostalAddress.cs:45
  • PostalAddressState.PostalCode Src/DDD.Common/Domain/PostalAddressState.cs:16
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PrescriberPostalCode Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:59
Date of birth — 3 field(s)
  • CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.PatientBirthdate Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery.Messages/Application/Prescriptions/CreatePharmaceuticalPrescription.cs:29
  • Patient.Birthdate Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Patients/Patient.cs:37
  • PatientState.Birthdate Src/DDD.HealthcareDelivery/Domain/Patients/PatientState.cs:12

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