Public report — Hostel, 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.
Small · 10,904 LoC · 55 projects · rebuild ~0.1 person-years · weakest lens: Readiness (16%)
Build did not compile — scores are provisional
The analysed solution did not compile (3 build error(s)). Dimensions that depend on the compiler — complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface — ran on incomplete models, so the scores below are provisional. Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade. First errors: MSB4278: The imported file "$(MSBuildExtensionsPath)/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v$(VisualStudioVersion)/SSDT/Microsoft.Data.Tools.Schema.SqlTasks.targets" does not exist and appears to be part of a Visual Studio component. This file may require MSBuild.exe in order to be imported successfully, and so may fail to build in the dotnet CLI.; CS0103: The name 'WebHost' does not exist in the current context
Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸
221findings with an exact file:lineof 283 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
70/105dimensions across the health lenses10904 LoC · 55 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
eaba/Hostel carries serious risk (33%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Architecture (75%) is solid too.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (16%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Code Health (42%) is the next concern — changes there are slower and more error-prone.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure).
For scale: Small (~10,904 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
R7 · Dead file (~35 LoC) Presentation/Web/Portal/Hostel.Web.Portal.Angular/src/app/_services/home.service.ts
R7 · Dead file (~20 LoC) Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/src/test.ts
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.
~391 LoC unreachable (16 file(s)) — that slice of this estimate buys code with zero runtime value; deleting it is the cheapest win in this report (the R7 card lists every file)
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€16,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 16% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.8) — microservices, CQRS, event-driven integration × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Highest-leverage move: fix the build · Critical · Leverage
The solution doesn't compile, so every Roslyn-derived dimension (complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface) ran on incomplete models and is PROVISIONAL. Fixing the build is the single change that makes the rest of the report trustworthy — do it first. The compiler reported: MSB4278: The imported file "$(MSBuildExtensionsPath)/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v$(VisualStudioVersion)/SSDT/Microsoft.Data.Tools.Schema.SqlTasks.targets" does not exist and appears to be part of a Visual Studio component. This file may require MSBuild.exe in order to be imported successfully, and so may fail to build in the dotnet CLI.; CS0103: The name 'WebHost' does not exist in the current context.
Evidence: D18 build: The compiler reported: MSB4278: The imported file "$(MSBuildExtensionsPath)/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v$(VisualStudioVersion)/SSDT/Microsoft.Data.Tools.Schema.SqlTasks.targets" does not exist and appears to be part of a Visual Studio component. This file may require MSBuild.exe in order to be imported successfully, and so may fail to build in the dotnet CLI.; CS0103: The name 'WebHost' does not exist in the current context.
→ Fix the build, then re-run for a reliable grade.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Readiness at 16%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Readiness first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
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.
At a glance — Code Health · 42% · Poor · gated by D18, R10, R7
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 category
Findings
Severity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
50
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, encrypt sensitive data at rest and manage keys in a vault, or confirm this is handled by infrastructure. Next, begin logging significant architectural decisions in an ADR log to record rationale. Then, reorganize the repository by grouping production code under a src/ directory to separate it from tooling. Additionally, add text alternatives for images and media to improve accessibility. Finally, enforce accessibility standards in the toolchain by integrating linting and testing tools to catch issues early.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
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. 67 of 70 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 70 dimensions across the health lenses
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
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 221 of 283 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.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
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.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
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.
D30 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.
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.
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.
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.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
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.
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.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
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.
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").
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
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.
AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct, and component-wrapped fields (e.g. a <TextField>) are skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials. Static readiness, not conformance.
AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — only literal inline colours and in-repo <style>-block CSS are read; external stylesheets, CSS-in-JS, computed/runtime/theme colour, and image contrast are all out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the markup itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (6): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
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.
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.
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
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.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling4.6 / 10Poor✓ 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.
Resolve the 37 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (37 warning-level).
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.
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.
Resolve the 6 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with BathRoomManagerActor.cs, FloorActor.cs, HostelActor.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.
Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution0.0 / 10Critical✓ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
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.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape3.0 / 10Poor✓ 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.
+ 52 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 29 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular.csproj, Hostel.Web.Portal.Angular.csproj, Notifier.Command.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (29 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
The documentation is extremely sparse and largely generic. The root README is a high-level, informal pitch with no technical depth, missing installation, configuration, or architecture details. The sub-project READMEs are standard Angular CLI templates that provide no project-specific context. Crucially, there are zero XML documentation comments across the entire codebase, meaning there is no inline code documentation. The lack of architecture or design documents further reduces the utility of the documentation.
The README is a generic Angular CLI template. It does not describe the specific purpose of this sub-project or how it integrates with the rest of the system. · ×2Presentation/Web/Portal/Hostel.Web.Portal.Angular/README.md
Resolve the 46 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Akka.Extension.csproj, Akka.MassTransit.Logger.Console.csproj, Akka.MassTransit.Logger.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (46 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 The README is a generic Angular CLI template. It does not describe the… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
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.
9 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
The concept of 'Tenancy' is represented by the type `Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy`. However, there is also a type `Hostel.Model.Tenant` which likely represents the same or a related concept, creating ambiguity between the namespace `Hostel.Model.Tenant` and the type `Tenancy` within it.
Inconsistent naming for command types: some use a plural noun for the object being created (e.g., `CreateBathRoom` vs `CreateRoom`), while others use singular or different structures. Specifically, `CreateBathRoom` and `CreateRoom` use singular nouns, but `CreateBathRooms` (method) uses plural. Also, `CreateSepticTank` vs `CreateWaterReservoir` vs `CreateFloor` show inconsistency in whether the object name is singular or plural in the command type vs method name.
Inconsistent naming for event types: some use `Created` prefix (e.g., `CreatedRoom`, `CreatedToilet`), while others use `RentedOut` or just the entity name (`InstalledSensor`, `SepticTank`). This makes it unclear if these are all domain events or if some are commands.
Inconsistent naming for state classes: some use `...State` (e.g., `WaterReservoirState`), while others use `...ManagerState` or `...SensorState`. The term `State` is used, but the prefix varies between `WaterReservoir`, `SepticTank`, `Floor`, `Sensor`. This is a minor inconsistency in how the state is named relative to the entity.
The property `Commander` is used across multiple command types. While this might be intentional, it is a generic name that could be more specific (e.g., `CommandId` or `CommandType`). However, looking at `Hostel.Event.InstalledSensor.CommandId` and `Hostel.Event.Created.CreatedRoom.CommandId`, there is a mix of `Commander` and `CommandId` for similar concepts.
+ 4 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 The concept of 'Tenancy' is represented by the type… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for command types finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for event types finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value / 10Poor◐ 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.
Resolve the 2 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with ConsentController.cs, Construction.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 misleading comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with DeviceController.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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).
High CVE: [CVE redacted] · ×38Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.jsondetected by trivy finding
Critical CVE: [CVE redacted] · ×12Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.jsondetected by trivy finding
What to do
Resolve the 38 High CVE finding(s) in JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (38). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (38 issue-level).
Resolve the 12 Critical CVE finding(s) in JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (12). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d33_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
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.
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.
What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — npm and other lockfile ecosystems, parsed natively. Complements D33 (npm via trivy) and D30 (.NET via dotnet).
Method: npm/multi-ecosystem CVE scan via osv-scanner (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively: package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable without a JS lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.
AC1 · Text alternatives2.9 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether non-text content carries a text alternative — img/area/input[type=image] have alt, a meaningful svg has a title or aria-label, and video has a captions track. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: every img/area/input[type=image] checked for alt, svg[role=img] for a title/aria-label, video for a captions <track>. Components skipped, spreads suppressed. Deterministic, hard fact per element.
An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×5) — Index.cshtml:8, UserCodeConfirmation.cshtml:8, Index.cshtml:31, …
What to do
Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC2 · Forms & labels5.2 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether form controls have a programmatic label (an associated label, aria-label or aria-labelledby), buttons have text, fieldsets have a legend, and a placeholder isn't used as the only label. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: inputs/selects/textareas checked for an associated label[for]/wrapping label/aria-label/aria-labelledby (per document), buttons for accessible text, fieldsets for a legend; placeholder-only labelling flagged. Deterministic, hard fact per control.
A fieldset groups related controls but has no <legend> to name the group. Add a <legend> as its first child. (×2) — Login.cshtml:24, Logout.cshtml:13
This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×4) — UserCodeCapture.cshtml:11, account.component.html:14, register.component.html:35, …
What to do
Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure4.8 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether pages declare a language and title, expose a main landmark and a sane heading order, keep zoom enabled, title their iframes and avoid meta-refresh. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: html lang, document <title>, a main landmark and heading order on full documents only, plus zoom-disabling viewports, untitled iframes and meta-refresh anywhere. Deterministic, per structural checkpoint.
An iframe with no title is announced only as "frame". Add a title describing its content. — LoggedOut.cshtml:21
Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. (×2) — Login.cshtml:17, Index.cshtml:5
The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×3) — _Layout.cshtml:0, _Layout.cshtml:2, _Layout.cshtml:2
A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. (×2) — _Layout.cshtml:0, _Layout.cshtml:2
No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×6) — _Layout.cshtml:0, index.html:2, Index.cshtml:2, …
What to do
Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Other · Accessibility — Whether ARIA is used correctly — valid non-abstract roles, the ARIA state a role requires, and no aria-hidden on a focusable element. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup-model scan: role values checked against the WAI-ARIA role set (abstract/invalid flagged), required ARIA state for a role, and aria-hidden on a focusable element. Deterministic, role/attribute level.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible, never computed or runtime colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement4.0 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse wired into tests or CI — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) configured, and axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI, graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
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.
Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
`HostelService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_actorSystem; e.g. `_actorSystem` at line 51). — HostelService.cs:22
What to do
Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
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.
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.
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.
`IDataTypes` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IDataTypes.cs:5
What to do
Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.
Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.
Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).
Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.
Other · Event-Driven — Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.
Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.
Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.
Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×5) — RentedOutRoom.cs:15, RentedOutRoom.cs:17, SensorHandler.cs:11, …
What to do
Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
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.
`Handle` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. — SensorHandler.cs:9
`Update` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×2) — SensorManagerState.cs:13, SensorState.cs:30
`ProcessLoginCallbackForWsFed` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — ExternalController.cs:228
`ProcessLoginCallbackForSaml2p` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — ExternalController.cs:232
`Configure` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. — AutoRefreshConfigureCookieOptions.cs:15
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×24) — RoomManagerActor.cs:45, HostActorRef.cs:16, HostelService.cs:30, …
What to do
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
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 an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 53 of 55 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.9 pts.
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.
Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
Only 12/55 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
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.
The README lists the tool-set including Akka.NET, MassTransit, SignalR, SQL, ML.NET, Quartz.NET, Xamarin.Forms, Asp.Net Core, IdentityServer4, xca, and Angular.
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: The README lists the tool-set including Akka.NET, MassTransit, SignalR, SQL, ML.NET, Quartz.NET, Xamarin.Forms, Asp.Net Core, IdentityServer4, xca, and Angular..
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability4.5 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.
Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.
The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.
What to do
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R1 · Type Safety9.2 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How much of the frontend is typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript.
Method: Frontend file inventory: the share of typed TypeScript vs untyped JavaScript across the source tree. Deterministic, exhaustive over frontend files.
What to do
Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R10 · Code Duplication3.9 / 10Poor✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm over JS/TS tokens, D-386).
Method: Copy-pasted token-identical blocks across the frontend (the D4 clone algorithm run over JS/TS tokens). Deterministic.
React / JS · Code Health — Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from the token-level function scanner (D-386) — real branching, not a regex heuristic.
Method: Per-function cyclomatic/cognitive complexity from a token-level function scanner (real branching, not a regex heuristic), computed over every frontend function. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R3 · Large Files10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — How many components/modules exceed the large-file threshold.
Method: Components/modules exceeding the large-file threshold, counted exhaustively across the frontend source tree. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R6 · Tooling6.7 / 10Fair✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Readiness — Whether the package.json wires up test, lint and typecheck scripts.
Method: package.json scanned for test/lint/typecheck script wiring. Deterministic presence check.
test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗
What to do
Add the missing scripts (eslint, tsc --noEmit) and run them in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
R7 · Dead Code0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified
React / JS · Code Health — Files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point, and exports nothing imports (module-graph reachability, D-386).
Method: Dead code: files unreachable from every application/tooling/test entry point plus exports nothing imports, via module-graph reachability. Deterministic, exhaustive over the import graph.
Unreachable from the 2 application, 12 tooling and 4 test entry point(s) detected in this repo. Gate removals on your build/type-check — an undetected custom entry would make these reachable.
no import path from any entry point (2 application, 12 tooling, 4 test roots considered) (×7) — home.service.ts, signalr.service.ts, home.component.ts, …
What to do
Delete the dead files and unused exports — every line is maintenance cost and rebuild-estimate inflation with zero runtime value.
React / JS · Readiness — npm dependency truthfulness (D-386): unused dependencies, imports not declared anywhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps.
Method: npm dependency truthfulness: unused dependencies, imports declared nowhere, and type-/test-only packages shipped as production deps — from the manifest + import graph. Deterministic.
Imported but not declared in any reachable package.json — installs work only by hoisting accident. — account.component.ts:8
Declared in Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)
What to do
Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
React / JS · Architecture — Import cycles in the module graph (D-386) — files that can only be understood and changed together.
Method: Import cycles in the module graph, detected exhaustively over JS/TS imports (the same cycle detection as the .NET coupling dimension). Deterministic.
Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).
`RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — Startup.cs:59
What to do
Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness5.5 / 10Fair✓ 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. (×5) — HostelManagerActor.cs:52, TraceLogger.cs:66, AutoRefreshConfigureCookieOptions.cs:12, …
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 3/48 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) — QueueLogger.cs:39, QueueLogger.cs:81, Api.cs:25, …
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
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.
`throw e;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. (×3) — Repository.cs:36, Repository.cs:95, Repository.cs:103
`throw ex;` resets the exception's stack trace to this line, hiding where it really came from. Use a bare `throw;` to preserve the original stack. — Repository.cs:136
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — HostelService.cs:53
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 13 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria — partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
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.
Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Not included — 35 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
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.
D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
D27 Navigability — Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
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.
R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
R4 Test Coverage — 4 test file(s) reach none of 34 production file(s) via imports — exercised outside the JS import graph (integration/bundled), not import-reachable
R5 Dependency Freshness — npm is not installed — dependency freshness not measured; JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
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 — 52 finding(s)
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities· High CVE · ×38
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/common: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/common: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/common: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/common: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/common: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/compiler: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/compiler: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/core: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/core: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/core: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/platform-server: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/platform-server: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/platform-server: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/platform-server: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— @angular/platform-server: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— cross-spawn: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— form-data: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— lodash: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— lodash: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— minimatch: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— minimatch: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— minimatch: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— minimatch: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— node-fetch: [CVE redacted]
High CVE: [CVE redacted] Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/package-lock.json— qs: [CVE redacted]
Off the main sequence: Owner.Command — Owner.Command: 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: Tenant.Command — Tenant.Command: 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: Reminder.Command — Reminder.Command: 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: Notifier.Command — Notifier.Command: 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: Owner.Event — Owner.Event: 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: Reminder.Event — Reminder.Event: 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: Notifier.Event — Notifier.Event: 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: Tenant.Event — Tenant.Event: 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: Reminder.Entity — Reminder.Entity: 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: Notifier.Entity — Notifier.Entity: 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: Owner.Entity — Owner.Entity: 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: Tenant.Entity — Tenant.Entity: 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: Hostel.Model — Hostel.Model: 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: Reminder.Model — Reminder.Model: 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: Notifier.Model — Notifier.Model: 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: Owner.Model — Owner.Model: 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: Tenant.Model — Tenant.Model: 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: Hostel.Query — Hostel.Query: 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: Reminder.Query — Reminder.Query: 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: Notifier.Query — Notifier.Query: 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: Owner.Query — Owner.Query: 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: Tenant.Query — Tenant.Query: 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: Notifier.Host — Notifier.Host: 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: Reminder.Host — Reminder.Host: 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: Owner.Host — Owner.Host: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
Change coupling: SepticTankState.cs ↔ WaterReservoirState.cs Domain/States/Hostel.State/SepticTankState.cs— `Domain/States/Hostel.State/SepticTankState.cs` and `Domain/States/Hostel.State/WaterReservoirState.cs` change together 80% of the time (8 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: account.component.ts ↔ register.component.ts Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/src/app/components/home/account.component.ts— `Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/src/app/components/home/account.component.ts` and `Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/src/app/components/home/register.component.ts` change together 73% of the time (8 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: BathRoomManagerActor.cs ↔ FloorActor.cs Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/BathRoomManagerActor.cs— `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/BathRoomManagerActor.cs` and `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/FloorActor.cs` change together 69% of the time (9 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: HostelManagerHandler.cs ↔ HostelManagerActor.cs Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Handler/HostelManagerHandler.cs— `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Handler/HostelManagerHandler.cs` and `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: HostelManagerActor.cs ↔ SepticTankState.cs Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs— `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs` and `Domain/States/Hostel.State/SepticTankState.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: HostelManagerActor.cs ↔ Floor.cs Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs— `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs` and `Domain/Repositories/Hostel.Repository/Floor.cs` change together 50% of the time (7 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: FloorHandler.cs ↔ HostelManagerHandler.cs Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Handler/FloorHandler.cs— `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Handler/FloorHandler.cs` and `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Handler/HostelManagerHandler.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Change coupling: HostelManagerActor.cs ↔ WaterReservoirState.cs Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs— `Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs` and `Domain/States/Hostel.State/WaterReservoirState.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
Low cohesion: HostelManagerActor (LCOM4 6) Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/HostelManagerActor.cs:21— HostelManagerActor's methods form 6 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: HostelActor (LCOM4 5) Shared/Actors/HostelActor.cs:10— HostelActor's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: BathRoomManagerActor (LCOM4 4) Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/BathRoomManagerActor.cs:15— BathRoomManagerActor'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: FloorActor (LCOM4 4) Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/FloorActor.cs:17— FloorActor'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: RoomManagerActor (LCOM4 4) Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/RoomManagerActor.cs:15— RoomManagerActor'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: ToiletManagerActor (LCOM4 4) Domain/Entities/Hostel.Entity/Floor/ToiletManagerActor.cs:15— ToiletManagerActor'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.
TodoComment Shared/ObserverSubscriber.cs:7— // TODO Double check the reactive streams spec. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment SharpNetSH/Utilities/ExtensionMethods.cs:24— // TODO: Determine if we need to handle 'void' methods - currently we don't — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Build failed — The target solution did not build cleanly (errors: 3), which caps Solution Shape at 3/10 — the most basic shape signal is that it compiles. First errors: MSB4278: The imported file "$(MSBuildExtensionsPath)/Microsoft/VisualStudio/v$(VisualStudioVersion)/SSDT/Microsoft.Data.Tools.Schema.SqlTasks.targets" does not exist and appears to be part of a Visual Studio component. This file may require MSBuild.exe in order to be imported successfully, and so may fail to build in the dotnet CLI.; CS0103: The name 'WebHost' does not exist in the current context.
Shell project: Owner.Command Domain/Commands/Owner.Command/Owner.Command.csproj— `Owner.Command` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Tenant.Command Domain/Commands/Tenant.Command/Tenant.Command.csproj— `Tenant.Command` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Reminder.Command Domain/Commands/Reminder.Command/Reminder.Command.csproj— `Reminder.Command` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.Command Domain/Commands/Notifier.Command/Notifier.Command.csproj— `Notifier.Command` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Owner.Event Domain/Events/Owner.Event/Owner.Event.csproj— `Owner.Event` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Reminder.Event Domain/Events/Reminder.Event/Reminder.Event.csproj— `Reminder.Event` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.Event Domain/Events/Notifier.Event/Notifier.Event.csproj— `Notifier.Event` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Tenant.Event Domain/Events/Tenant.Event/Tenant.Event.csproj— `Tenant.Event` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Reminder.Entity Domain/Entities/Reminder.Entity/Reminder.Entity.csproj— `Reminder.Entity` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.Entity Domain/Entities/Notifier.Entity/Notifier.Entity.csproj— `Notifier.Entity` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Tenant.Entity Domain/Entities/Tenant.Entity/Tenant.Entity.csproj— `Tenant.Entity` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Reminder.Model Domain/Models/Reminder.Model/Reminder.Model.csproj— `Reminder.Model` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.Model Domain/Models/Notifier.Model/Notifier.Model.csproj— `Notifier.Model` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Owner.Model Domain/Models/Owner.Model/Owner.Model.csproj— `Owner.Model` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Tenant.Model Domain/Models/Tenant.Model/Tenant.Model.csproj— `Tenant.Model` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Reminder.Query Domain/Queries/Reminder.Query/Reminder.Query.csproj— `Reminder.Query` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.Query Domain/Queries/Notifier.Query/Notifier.Query.csproj— `Notifier.Query` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Owner.Query Domain/Queries/Owner.Query/Owner.Query.csproj— `Owner.Query` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Tenant.Query Domain/Queries/Tenant.Query/Tenant.Query.csproj— `Tenant.Query` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.State Domain/States/Notifier.State/Notifier.State.csproj— `Notifier.State` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Owner.State Domain/States/Owner.State/Owner.State.csproj— `Owner.State` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Reminder.State Domain/States/Reminder.State/Reminder.State.csproj— `Reminder.State` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Tenant.State Domain/States/Tenant.State/Tenant.State.csproj— `Tenant.State` contributes only 0 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Notifier.Repository Domain/Repositories/Notifier.Repository/Notifier.Repository.csproj— `Notifier.Repository` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
Shell project: Owner.Repository Domain/Repositories/Owner.Repository/Owner.Repository.csproj— `Owner.Repository` contributes only 7 significant line(s) — an empty/placeholder project is structural noise. Remove it or fold its contents into a real project.
+ 4 more in this group — see findings.md.
D19 · Documentation Quality· The README is a generic Angular CLI template. It does not describe the specific purpose of this sub-project or how it integrates with the rest of the system. · ×2
The README is a generic Angular CLI template. It does not describe the specific purpose of this sub-project or how it integrates with the rest of the system. Presentation/Web/Portal/Hostel.Web.Portal.Angular/README.md— Replace the generic template with a custom README that explains the specific role of the Angular Portal, its dependencies, and how to run it in the context of the larger solution.
The README is a generic Angular CLI template. It does not describe the specific purpose of this sub-project or how it integrates with the rest of the system. Presentation/Web/Landing/Hostel.Web.Landing.Angular/README.md— Replace the generic template with a custom README that explains the specific role of the Angular Landing page, its dependencies, and how to run it in the context of the larger solution.
redundant comment Domain/Models/Hostel.Model/Construction.cs:161— "// Feet" — Remove. This is a single-word label that likely duplicates a variable or property name.
redundant comment Hosts/IdentityServer.Host/Controllers/ConsentController.cs:1— "// Copyright (c) Brock Allen & Dominick Baier. All rights reserved." — Remove. Copyright headers are usually handled by templates or separate files, not inline comments.
D11 · Test Reliability· Test reliability not included · ×1
Test reliability not included — No test projects found, so reliability couldn't be assessed.
No ADRs found — No ADRs found at common paths; consider documenting architectural decisions in Docs/ADL/ or similar.
D21 · Naming Consistency· The concept of 'Tenancy' is represented by the type `Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy`. However, there is also a type `Hostel.Model.Tenant` which likely represents the same or a related concept, creating ambiguity between the namespace `Hostel.Model.Tenant` and the type `Tenancy` within it. · ×1
The concept of 'Tenancy' is represented by the type `Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy`. However, there is also a type `Hostel.Model.Tenant` which likely represents the same or a related concept, creating ambiguity between the namespace `Hostel.Model.Tenant` and the type `Tenancy` within it. — Ensure `Hostel.Model.Tenant` is not a namespace that conflicts with or duplicates the concept of `Tenancy`. If `Tenant` is a namespace, ensure it doesn't shadow or confuse the `Tenancy` type. (symbols: Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy, Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy)
Inconsistent naming for command types: some use a plural noun for the object being created (e.g., `CreateBathRoom` vs `CreateRoom`), while others use singular or different structures. Specifically, `CreateBathRoom` and `CreateRoom` use singular nouns, but `CreateBathRooms` (method) uses plural. Also, `CreateSepticTank` vs `CreateWaterReservoir` vs `CreateFloor` show inconsistency in whether the object name is singular or plural in the command type vs method name. — Standardize command types to use singular nouns for the entity being created (e.g., `CreateBathRoom`, `CreateWaterReservoir`). Ensure method names match the type naming convention (e.g., `CreateBathRoom` method creates a `CreateBathRoom` command). (symbols: Hostel.Command.Create.CreateBathRoom, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateWaterReservoir, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateSepticTank, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateRoom, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateFloor)
Inconsistent naming for event types: some use `Created` prefix (e.g., `CreatedRoom`, `CreatedToilet`), while others use `RentedOut` or just the entity name (`InstalledSensor`, `SepticTank`). This makes it unclear if these are all domain events or if some are commands. — Standardize event naming to follow a consistent pattern, such as `RoomCreatedEvent` or `CreatedRoomEvent` for all creation events. (symbols: Hostel.Event.InstalledSensor, Hostel.Event.Created.CreatedRoom, Hostel.Event.Created.CreatedToilet, Hostel.Event.Floor.RentedOutRoom, Hostel.Event.SepticTank)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent naming for state classes · ×1
Inconsistent naming for state classes: some use `...State` (e.g., `WaterReservoirState`), while others use `...ManagerState` or `...SensorState`. The term `State` is used, but the prefix varies between `WaterReservoir`, `SepticTank`, `Floor`, `Sensor`. This is a minor inconsistency in how the state is named relative to the entity. — Ensure all state classes follow the pattern `EntityNameState` (e.g., `WaterReservoirState`, `SepticTankState`, `FloorState`). Avoid mixing `ManagerState` or `SensorState` if they represent the same kind of object. (symbols: Hostel.State.WaterReservoirState, Hostel.State.SepticTankState, Hostel.State.Floor.BathRoomManagerState, Hostel.State.Floor.ToiletManagerState, Hostel.State.Sensor.SensorState)
D21 · Naming Consistency· The property `Commander` is used across multiple command types. While this might be intentional, it is a generic name that could be more specific (e.g., `CommandId` or `CommandType`). However, looking at `Hostel.Event.InstalledSensor.CommandId` and `Hostel.Event.Created.CreatedRoom.CommandId`, there is a mix of `Commander` and `CommandId` for similar concepts. · ×1
The property `Commander` is used across multiple command types. While this might be intentional, it is a generic name that could be more specific (e.g., `CommandId` or `CommandType`). However, looking at `Hostel.Event.InstalledSensor.CommandId` and `Hostel.Event.Created.CreatedRoom.CommandId`, there is a mix of `Commander` and `CommandId` for similar concepts. — Standardize the property name for the command identifier or type. If it's an ID, use `CommandId`. If it's a type, use `CommandType` or `Commander` consistently. (symbols: Hostel.Command.Create.CreateBathRoom.Commander, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateWaterReservoir.Commander, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateSepticTank.Commander, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateRoom.Commander, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateFloor.Commander)
D21 · Naming Consistency· The property `ReplyToQueue` is used in both `Shared.IQuery` and specific command types. This suggests a shared interface or base class is being used, but the naming `ReplyToQueue` might be misleading if it's not a queue but a topic or channel. · ×1
The property `ReplyToQueue` is used in both `Shared.IQuery` and specific command types. This suggests a shared interface or base class is being used, but the naming `ReplyToQueue` might be misleading if it's not a queue but a topic or channel. — If `ReplyToQueue` is a standard property for all commands/queries, ensure the name accurately reflects its purpose. Consider `ResponseQueue` or `ReplyChannel` if it's not strictly a queue. (symbols: Shared.IQuery.ReplyToQueue, Hostel.Command.Create.CreateBathRoom.ReplyToQueue, Hostel.Command.RentOutRoom.ReplyToQueue)
Inconsistent naming for tenant-related properties: `Birthday.Month` vs `Tenancy.Price` vs `Tenancy.PaymentType`. The tenant model has a mix of simple properties and nested objects (`Issue`, `Tenancy`). — Ensure all tenant-related data is consistently structured, either all flat or all nested. If `Tenancy` is a nested object, ensure `Birthday` is also a nested object or all properties are flat. (symbols: Hostel.Model.Tenant.Birthday.Month, Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy.Price, Hostel.Model.Tenant.Tenancy.PaymentType, Hostel.Model.Tenant.Issue.IssueDate)
D21 · Naming Consistency· Inconsistent naming for actors/handlers · ×1
Inconsistent naming for actors/handlers: some use `...Actor` (e.g., `BathRoomManagerActor`), while others use `...Handler` (e.g., `WaterReservoirHandler`). This suggests a mix of Akka actors and standard handlers. — Standardize on `...Actor` for all Akka actors or `...Handler` for all handlers. Avoid mixing `Actor` and `Handler` for similar responsibilities. (symbols: Hostel.Entity.Floor.BathRoomManagerActor, Hostel.Entity.Floor.ToiletManagerActor, Hostel.Entity.Floor.FloorActor, Hostel.Entity.Handler.WaterReservoirHandler, Hostel.Entity.Handler.HostelManagerHandler)
Inconsistent naming for specification objects: some use `...Spec` (e.g., `SensorSpec`, `SepticTankSpec`), while the base type is `Sensor` (not `SensorSpec`). This creates a mismatch where some entities have a `Spec` class and others do not. — Ensure all entities have a corresponding `...Spec` class for their specifications, or remove the `Spec` suffix if it's not a standard pattern. (symbols: Hostel.Model.Sensor, Hostel.Model.SensorSpec, Hostel.Model.SepticTankSpec, Hostel.Model.ToiletSpec)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling· Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
Bounded contexts not declared — The codebase is large and highly modular, indicating distinct concerns that require explicit boundary declarations to assess cross-boundary coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
misleading comment Hosts/IdentityServer.Host/Controllers/DeviceController.cs:97— "// if the user consented to some scope, build the response model" — Verify if this still matches the code. If the code now handles multiple scopes or different logic, update or remove.
Navigability unmeasured — symbol resolution incomplete — 72 % of sampled invocations could not be resolved to a symbol (the workspace likely loaded without all references) — the indirection fractions would be computed over an unrepresentative slice, so navigability is reported as not measured rather than a misleading score.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities· Not applicable · ×1
Not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
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.
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.
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.
IdentityServer.Host (Production) Hosts/IdentityServer.Host/IdentityServer.Host.csproj— 51 .cs files, 5467 LoC (4244 significant)
D22 · Internal API Consistency· No exposed public API · ×1
No exposed public API — No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
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.
dotnet: not applicable — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
provenance: 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.
disclosure: 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.
Run 019ee1ea-f17d-7fd1-8801-fede7d3dbac4 · 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 — 4 field(s) across 3 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.
Issues: 52 · Warnings: 107 · Recommendations: 55 · Info: 69 — Appendix A · all findings · full markdown report.
Generated by Watchdog — deterministic code-health analysis. 19-06-2026 @ 22:05 UTC.
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.