Executive summary
efcore/EFCore.FSharp scores 41 out of 100 and is rated Weak, while five of its seven lenses score higher still: Performance at 100, rated Exemplary, Architecture at 90, rated Strong, and Security and Compliance at 73, Code Health at 64 and Maturity at 54, all rated Adequate.
The score is lower than those five because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 29 and is rated Weak. Its Dependency Hygiene dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 66 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene and to resolve the 14 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 41 to about 51.
18 findings are critical: 14 in Dependency Hygiene, two in Static Analysis (SAST), one in Forms & labels and one in Secrets (history).
Watchdog couldn't measure 35 dimensions in this code, among them License Compliance, Explicit Debt and Internal API Consistency, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 7,243 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €9,700, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 29 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 41 to about 51.
New since the last survey: 4 findings
- Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED
- Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement docsSrc/content/style.css
- Visual & motion safety · Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement docs/content/style.css
Fixed since the last survey: 1 finding
- Supply-chain Provenance & Signing REDACTED
Rebuild cost: about €9,700 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €3,200 to €16,000, for 54 to 171 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.7 at a score of 41. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Small: 7,243 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 DocsTool.CLIArgs | 2 EFCore.FSharp.Tests.Translations.SingleCaseUnionTranslationTests | 3 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp | 4 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Conversion | 5 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.DbContextHelpers | 6 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.EntityFrameworkExtensions | 7 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal | 8 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal.FSharpUtilities | 9 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design | 10 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Internal | 11 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding.Internal | 12 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.SharedTypeExtensions | 13 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.StringBuffer | 14 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.DbContextHelperTests | 15 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Internal | 16 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.IsNullTranslationTests | 17 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationOperationGeneratorTest | 18 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsGeneratorTest | 19 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.OptionTranslationTests | 20 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpDbContextGeneratorTest | 21 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.ModelCodeGeneratorTestBase | 22 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities | 23 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.FakeProvider | 24 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Utilities | 25 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.ValueConverters.ValueConvertersTest | 26 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations | 27 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.IsNullTranslation | 28 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.OptionTranslation | 29 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.SingleCaseUnionTranslation | 30 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Utilities | 31 ExpectoTemplate | 32 PartMembers | 33 PartNested | 34 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions | 35 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding | 36 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design | 37 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest | 38 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests | 39 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory | 40 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 DocsTool.CLIArgs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 EFCore.FSharp.Tests.Translations.SingleCaseUnionTranslationTests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Conversion | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.DbContextHelpers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.EntityFrameworkExtensions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal.FSharpUtilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Internal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding.Internal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.SharedTypeExtensions | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.StringBuffer | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.DbContextHelperTests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Internal | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.IsNullTranslationTests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationOperationGeneratorTest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsGeneratorTest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.OptionTranslationTests | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpDbContextGeneratorTest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.ModelCodeGeneratorTestBase | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.FakeProvider | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Utilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.ValueConverters.ValueConvertersTest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.IsNullTranslation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.OptionTranslation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.SingleCaseUnionTranslation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Utilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 ExpectoTemplate | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 PartMembers | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 PartNested | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers | 1 |
34→26 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions.Extensions→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.FSharpTypeOptionsExtension
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Translations.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Extensions uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
35→3 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding.FSharpEntityTypeGenerator→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.ScaffoldOptions
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Scaffolding uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→7 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.TestFSharpSnapshotGenerator→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal.FSharpHelper
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Internal.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
36→9 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.TestFSharpSnapshotGenerator→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design.FSharpSnapshotGenerator
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
37→9 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolder
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Migrations.Design.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.FSharpMigrationsScaffolderTest uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
38→3 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests.FSharpModelGeneratorTests→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.ScaffoldOptions
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Scaffolding.Internal.FSharpModelGeneratorTests uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
39→22 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory.TestServiceFactory→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.ImplementationEntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory.TestServiceFactory→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.ImplementationType
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.TestUtilities.TestServiceFactory uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
40→36 EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers uses a type in EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.
- The types involved
EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers.Helpers→EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.GeometryValueCoverter`1
- Direction
- EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers uses EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design, so a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design can break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers, while a change to EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers can't break EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp.Test.Migrations.Design.Helpers uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Accessibility
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2025 — Injection | 6 | High / Critical |
| A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration | 4 | Medium |
| A07:2025 — Authentication Failures | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, address the 66 deprecated and 14 vulnerable dependencies to secure the codebase. Next, implement structured logging via ILogger or Serilog across all services to establish proper observability. Finally, improve accessibility by ensuring custom controls are keyboard-operable, maintaining visible focus styles, and correcting color contrast and animation settings.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 66 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +10.3 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 14 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +6.8 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +2.6 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Log through `ILogger` (Microsoft.Extensions.Logging, or Serilog with a JSON sink) at meaningful points in the programs and services you run. | +5.1 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href. | +3.4 pts | Medium | Keyboard semantics |
| Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1. | +3.4 pts | Medium | Visual & motion safety |
| Resolve the 21 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs, FSharpEntityTypeGenerator.fs, Program.fs. | +2.8 pts | Medium | Knowledge Freshness |
| Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it. | +2.5 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 1.9 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs | 5.5 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: FSharpHelper.unknownLiteral (cyclomatic 32) |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations (cyclomatic 47) |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Secrets (history): High secret: REDACTED |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs | 7.4 | Mixed | God Classes: FileTooLong: Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): Medium: REDACTED |
| docsTool/docsTool.fsproj | 7.9 | Mixed | Platform End-of-Life: End-of-life runtime: .NET net5.0 |
| build/build.fsproj | 7.9 | Mixed | Platform End-of-Life: End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0 |
| docsTool/templates/modules.fs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/SharedTypeExtensions.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: SharedTypeExtensions.processGenericType (cognitive 38) |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/Multigraph.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: Multigraph`2.TopologicalSort (cognitive 23) |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpUtilities.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cognitive Complexity: FSharpUtilities.getTypeName (cognitive 17) |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/DbContextHelpers.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: TooManyFunctions: DbContextHelpers |
| src/EFCore.FSharp/Scaffolding/FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: FileTooLong: Scaffolding/FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs |
| docsTool/templates/partNested.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) |
| REDACTED | 8.7 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: Low IaC: REDACTED |
How the grades work
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 49 of 52 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 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 52 dimensions across the health lenses
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 73 of 315 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D14 License Compliance — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — this repository's projects are MSBuild/NuGet projects, whose package licenses are exactly what this dimension reads, but no license could be resolved for them (the .NET license collector did not run, or restore failed). A gap in the analysis run, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant.
- D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. All 24 significant source file(s) were last meaningfully changed so long ago that no living knowledge remains — nothing since has been substantial enough to re-establish ownership (a broad, mechanical sweep that touches many files shallowly does not count, and neither does no activity at all). There is no concentration to measure, so the bus factor is not scored. This is not a clean bill: nobody currently holds working knowledge of this code (see D34 Knowledge Freshness). Counted over 24 of the 36 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is a COLLECTOR gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here, so this ecosystem's public API has no collector, and the remedy is to write one — no change to the scan image can close it.
- D27 Navigability — evaluation did not complete — Navigability not included (check did not complete) — excluded from the score.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registrations in C# and Spring beans in Java/Kotlin only, and this repository's container is Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection registered from F#, whose lifetimes are not modelled yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Render strategy: boot via REDACTED (REDACTED). docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped.
- C1 Data Protection — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- P1 CI/CD gates — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Which of the two it is cannot be settled from this dimension's evidence; the coverage dimensions report whether a suite exists at all. You can widen what we reach: name the test runner explicitly in the pipeline step (your stack's test command, or a job named for the suite) so the gate is unambiguous to a reader and to this pass.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X1 Async correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X3 Exception handling — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X4 Structured logging — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X5 Nullable reference types — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is implemented over the C# syntax tree, and no C# was loaded on this run, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- Package restore incomplete — third-party types were unresolved in part of the solution — NuGet restore did not complete for src/EFCore.FSharp/EFCore.FSharp.fsproj, tests/EFCore.FSharp.Tests/EFCore.FSharp.Tests.fsproj, docsTool/docsTool.fsproj, build/build.fsproj, so those projects were analysed with framework references only: every check keyed on a third-party type saw an error type there and reported nothing. Findings on those projects are a lower bound; run `dotnet restore` on them and rescan.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- 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 — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- 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.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- 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").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a REDACTED (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- 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. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A click handler on a plain element is now asked for a name too (it is a control the author declared), but the subtree test that answers it is deliberately generous: any DYNAMIC text expression in the subtree counts as a name, so an icon chosen by a ternary ({cond ? <IconA/> : <IconB/>}) reads as named, and a glyph component from a library the icon-import list does not know still names its parent. A clean result is "no unlabelled 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, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
- 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. The two-branch toggle check (a control whose state is conveyed only by which of two mutually exclusive branches renders) reads CONDITIONALS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTES — Vue v-if/v-else/v-show and Alpine x-if/x-show — so the same toggle written as a Svelte {#if} block or a JSX ternary is control flow the markup model never projects as a branch and is not seen at all.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS 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".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
3 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations at 47.
What to do
- Bring the 3 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations (cyclomatic 47), FSharpHelper.unknownLiteral (cyclomatic 32), FSharpHelper.handleExpression (cyclomatic 16). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 3 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 8.6 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
8 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations at 82.
What to do
- Bring the 2 bodies over 30 down to 30 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations (cognitive 82), SharedTypeExtensions.processGenericType (cognitive 38). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 2 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 7.5 to about 8.6/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 30; a cleaner split scores higher.
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D3 · God Classes
6 god class(es) detected.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs, FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs, FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with FSharpHelper.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TooManyFunctions finding(s) in God Classes — start with DbContextHelpers.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
D4 · Code Duplication
6 duplicated block group(s) detected.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with modules.fs, FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (104 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with FSharpHelper.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D5 · Coupling
4 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 6 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with FSharpHelper.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
150 outdated, 14 vulnerable, 66 deprecated, 2 prerelease packages.
What to do
- Resolve the 66 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (66 warning-level).
- Resolve the 14 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Prerelease dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README and the docsTool README are both excellent documentation for their respective directories: the root README (EFCore.FSharp) is a clear overview of what the project does, its NuGet package metadata, usage guidance, and build commands; it also links to an external getting-started guide. The docsTool README provides a thorough high-level design document describing the docsSrc folder structure, navigation conventions, and how API references are generated from XML comments in src, plus running docsTool subcommands with usage examples. All visible documents (README.md, docsTool/README.md, docs/index.html) are well-structured and complete for their purposes.
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 3 build units (MSBuild) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D28 · Secrets (history)
1 finding(s): 0 critical, 1 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 High secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
6 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 4 medium, 0 low. 2 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 2 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
4 finding(s): 0 critical, 0 high, 0 medium, 4 low.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
24 of 24 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs. Counted over 24 of the 36 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
What to do
- Resolve the 21 Orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs, FSharpEntityTypeGenerator.fs, Program.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 3 Most significant orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs, FSharpHelper.fs, FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D39 · IL Efficiency
5 of 662 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
2 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 4 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with docsTool.fsproj, build.fsproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC1 · Text alternatives
AC2 · Forms & labels
- A button with no text and no aria-label has no accessible name. Add visible text or an aria-label (an icon-only button still needs one). — docsTool/templates/nav.fs:181
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.
AC3 · Page structure
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. — docsTool/templates/master.fs:128
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.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics
- An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×2) — docsTool/templates/modules.fs:108, docsTool/templates/types.fs:108
What to do
- Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
- `.bootstrap h1 a` sets the outline to none/0 and no visible :focus / :focus-visible style for that element replaces it in this stylesheet, so a keyboard user cannot see where focus is. Draw a focus ring (outline, box-shadow or border) under :focus-visible. (×2) — docsSrc/content/style.css:216, docs/content/style.css:216
What to do
- Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no automated accessibility check runs over the HTML your app renders. Assert the accessibility invariants over that HTML in the test suite you already have (parse the output and assert, or drive a browser), and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 9 markup file(s) this pass actually assessed, the linter configuration checked in beside them, and this repository's test and CI files — matched by name against the accessibility checkers this dimension carries. An audit run outside the repository, a hosted scanner, or a check whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the test suite you already have: assert the accessibility invariants over the HTML your app renders — parse the rendered output in an existing test, or drive a real browser from one — and gate that test in CI so a regression blocks the merge.
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
AX8 · Test isolation
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- GETTING_STARTED.md installs the package `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite` (`dotnet add package Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite`), but no project or props file references it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — GETTING_STARTED.md:52
- GETTING_STARTED.md installs the package `EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp` (`dotnet add package EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp`), but no project or props file references it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — GETTING_STARTED.md:53
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: GETTING_STARTED.md installs the package `Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite` (`dotnet add package Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Sqlite`), but no project or props file references it; GETTING_STARTED.md installs the package `EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp` (`dotnet add package EntityFrameworkCore.FSharp`), but no project or props file references it.
P1 · CI/CD gates
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`dotnet test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
P2 · Observability
- No logging call was found in the 47 JavaScript/TypeScript, F# production file(s) this check read across 4 module(s). Each was searched for its ecosystem's logging libraries (JavaScript/TypeScript: pino, winston, bunyan, log4js, loglevel, consola, the NestJS Logger; F#: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging (ILogger), Serilog, NLog, log4net, Logary) and for a call on a receiver named `log`/`logger` (or ending in `Logger`/`_logger`) with a level verb. It cannot see logging through a repo-local wrapper named otherwise, or in source it did not read — this is 'no logging found by this walk', not a verdict that nothing here logs. If it is right, production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Log through `ILogger` (Microsoft.Extensions.Logging, or Serilog with a JSON sink) at meaningful points in the programs and services you run.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting with the ASP.NET Core instrumentation) and a health-check endpoint (ASP.NET Core's MapHealthChecks, or a /health route in your Giraffe/Suave app) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 987 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Nothing pauses a release for a human: publish as a draft release (or gate the release job on a protected tag/manual dispatch) so a bad build can be stopped before users can download it.
P6 · Release Hygiene
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
R1 · Type Safety
- 0 typed · 5 plain JS — the untyped files are docsSrc/content/cleanups.js, REDACTED, docsSrc/content/submenu.js, docsSrc/content/themes.js, docsSrc/content/tips.js.
What to do
- Adopt TypeScript for the frontend: add a typecheck step to the build, then either type-check the existing JavaScript in place (`checkJs`/JSDoc types) or convert the highest-traffic modules first — no file is typed today, so this is an adoption, not a clean-up.
R10 · Code Duplication
- docs/ and docsSrc/ are near-verbatim copies of each other: 9 files are byte-identical under the same relative paths (~471 KB; the trees hold 18 and 17 files). That is one structural fact, not 9 local ones: every edit made to one tree and not the other drifts silently, which is the failure whole-tree forks guarantee. Pick one tree as the single source and produce the other from it (generated, copied at build or release time, or re-exported) — or, if the copy is a stale snapshot nothing produces any more, delete it. Check first whether the copy is a deliberately published deliverable (a template consumers copy verbatim, a released sample frozen at a version); where it is, keep it produced from the source tree rather than edited in place. — docs/content/style.css:1
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
R3 · Large Files
R9 · Circular Imports
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 · Text alternatives | 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5 | Partial signal |
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC4 · Keyboard semantics | 2.1.1, 2.4.3 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 64% | Adequate — gated by R1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 90% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 54% | Adequate — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 29% | Weak — gated by D12, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 73% | Adequate — gated by D44 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Accessibility | 37% | Weak — gated by AC4, AC6 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Performance | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Unscored — 2 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — 1 observation(s) recorded · The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). Build integrity and workflow-token hygiene are reported below: they describe what the CI runs and the token it runs with, neither of which is affected by whether the pipeline ships an artifact.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.
Not evidenced — 4 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 72 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AX1 Captive dependencies — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX2 Stateful singletons — No container singleton was found, so there is no shared instance for concurrent requests to race on. No F# function in this code takes an ASP.NET Core or Suave HttpContext (a Giraffe, Saturn, Falco, Oxpecker or Suave handler) and no F# class is an ASP.NET Core controller, so no request handler shares module state between request threads. TypeScript/JavaScript runs each process's requests on one event loop, so no two requests write a shared object at the same instant (interleaving across an await is a different defect).
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — docker build failed (exit 1) — DEPRECATED: The legacy builder is deprecated and will be removed in a future release. Install the buildx component to build images with BuildKit: https://docs.docker.com/go/bui…; runtime evidence skipped This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~4171 lines of test source are present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D14 License Compliance — Package licences not resolved for an MSBuild/NuGet repository
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D17 Explicit Debt — the C# workspace loaded 0 projects, so explicit-debt density could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution; this repository's .NET projects are all F# (.fsproj), which the C#/VB workspace does not load, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — Navigability not included (check did not complete)
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (14 value object(s))
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens looks for
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for a BenchmarkDotNet reference in an .fsproj or .vbproj, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's F# code has 9,131 production line(s), 2 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R4 Test Coverage — the JS/TS workspace (5 production file(s)) has no JavaScript/TypeScript test, but it is 3.59% of this repository's production source and the other 96.41% carries 4,171 line(s) of test code this pass cannot read — an incidental frontend's reachability is not the repository's test posture, so it is not scored as one
- R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D30 (Dependency Vulnerabilities), which answers every ecosystem
- R6 Tooling — no package.json in the repository — test/lint/typecheck wiring is read from package.json scripts (corroborated against CI), so this project's own toolchain isn't measured here
- R7 Dead Code — Not measured — no application, tooling or test entry point was detected, so no file can be shown to be reachable or unreachable. Declare an entry (package.json main/module/exports, src/index.*, or an index.html script) to enable reachability.
- R8 Dependency Hygiene — Not measured — no package.json declares any dependency, so there is nothing to check imports against (imports may resolve through a host runtime rather than node).
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X12 Unreachable branch — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X13 Undrained process stream — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X14 Bypassable address classification — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X15 Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X16 Unfloored truncation loop — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X18 Disposal-pattern correctness — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X19 Unrestored process-global state — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X21 Side-effecting pattern guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X22 Contradicted release guard — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X25 Inert configuration knob — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X26 Unsynchronised callback handoff — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X29 Per-element action decided by a fixed element — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X30 Support guard that admits what it rejects — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check reads C# syntax; no C# was loaded for this repository, so it has nothing to report. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 18 finding(s)
- Vulnerable: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory
- Vulnerable: Azure.Identity
- Vulnerable: Microsoft.Build.Tasks.Core
- Vulnerable: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient
- Vulnerable: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens
- Vulnerable: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3
- Vulnerable: System.Drawing.Common
- Vulnerable: System.Formats.Asn1
- Vulnerable: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt
- Vulnerable: System.Security.Cryptography.Xml
- Vulnerable: System.Text.Json
- Vulnerable: NuGet.Common
- Vulnerable: NuGet.Packaging
- Vulnerable: NuGet.Protocol
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- <button> with no accessible text docsTool/templates/nav.fs:181
- REDACTED
Serious — 109 finding(s)
- Deprecated: System.Collections.Immutable
- Deprecated: Azure.Identity
- Deprecated: Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces
- Deprecated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient
- Deprecated: Microsoft.Identity.Client
- Deprecated: Microsoft.Identity.Client.Extensions.Msal
- Deprecated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens
- Deprecated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Logging
- Deprecated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols
- Deprecated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols.OpenIdConnect
- Deprecated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Tokens
- Deprecated: Microsoft.NETCore.Platforms
- Deprecated: Microsoft.Win32.SystemEvents
- Deprecated: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3
- Deprecated: System.CodeDom
- Deprecated: System.Composition
- Deprecated: System.Composition.AttributedModel
- Deprecated: System.Composition.Convention
- Deprecated: System.Composition.Hosting
- Deprecated: System.Composition.Runtime
- Deprecated: System.Composition.TypedParts
- Deprecated: System.Configuration.ConfigurationManager
- Deprecated: System.Drawing.Common
- Deprecated: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt
- Deprecated: System.IO.Pipelines
- FileTooLong: Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs
- FileTooLong: Scaffolding/FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs src/EFCore.FSharp/Scaffolding/FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs
- FileTooLong: Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs
- FileTooLong: Internal/FSharpHelper.fs src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs
- Anchor without href docsTool/templates/modules.fs:108
- Anchor without href docsTool/templates/types.fs:108
- Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement docsSrc/content/style.css:216
- Focus outline removed in CSS without a :focus replacement docs/content/style.css:216
- Prerelease dependency: FSharp.Formatting
- Prerelease dependency: FSharp.Literate
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) docsTool/templates/modules.fs:65
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs:176
- End-of-life runtime: .NET net5.0 docsTool/docsTool.fsproj:5
- End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0 build/build.fsproj:5
- Page without a main landmark docsTool/templates/master.fs:128
- Accessibility enforcement below the top rung
- FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations (cyclomatic 47) src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs:508
- FSharpHelper.unknownLiteral (cyclomatic 32) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:658
- FSharpHelper.handleExpression (cyclomatic 16) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:344
- FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateEntityTypeAnnotations (cognitive 82) src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs:508
- SharedTypeExtensions.processGenericType (cognitive 38) src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/SharedTypeExtensions.fs:46
- FSharpHelper.buildFragment (cognitive 25) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:574
- FSharpSnapshotGenerator.generateForeignKey (cognitive 24) src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs:775
- Multigraph`2.TopologicalSort (cognitive 23) src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/Multigraph.fs:53
- FSharpHelper.handleExpression (cognitive 21) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:344
- FSharpHelper.unknownLiteral (cognitive 19) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:658
- FSharpUtilities.getTypeName (cognitive 17) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpUtilities.fs:216
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- TooManyMethods: FSharpHelper src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:17
- TooManyFunctions: DbContextHelpers src/EFCore.FSharp/DbContextHelpers.fs:1
- REDACTED
- Duplicated block (104 lines × 2) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:37
- Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs:732
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:21
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) docsTool/templates/partNested.fs:13
- Low cohesion: FSharpHelper (LCOM4 4) src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:17
- Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
- No structured logging
- Type Safety
- Forked directory tree (9 identical files, ~471 KB × 2 trees) docs/content/style.css:1
Minor — 97 finding(s)
- Outdated: FSharp.Core
- Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Tasks.Git
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Analyzers
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Relational
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Abstractions
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Primitives
- Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.Common
- Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub
- Outdated: System.Collections.Immutable
- Outdated: System.Diagnostics.DiagnosticSource
- Outdated: Microsoft.Bcl.AsyncInterfaces
- Outdated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient
- Outdated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient.SNI.runtime
- Outdated: Microsoft.Data.Sqlite.Core
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.InMemory
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationOperationGenerator.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Scaffolding/FSharpEntityTypeGenerator.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/Program.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpUtilities.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/master.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/SharedTypeExtensions.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/DbContextHelpers.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/modules.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationsGenerator.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/nav.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/types.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Extensions/ModelBuilderExtensions.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/Multigraph.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/WebServer.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Scaffolding/Internal/FSharpModelGenerator.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/partMembers.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/StringBuffer.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/namespaces.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpMigrationsScaffolder.fs:1
- Orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Utilities/EntityFrameworkExtensions.fs:1
- Orphaned file docsTool/templates/partNested.fs:1
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Most significant orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Scaffolding/FSharpDbContextGenerator.fs:1
- Most significant orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Internal/FSharpHelper.fs:1
- Most significant orphaned file src/EFCore.FSharp/Migrations/Design/FSharpSnapshotGenerator.fs:1
- README/code drift GETTING_STARTED.md:52
- README/code drift GETTING_STARTED.md:53
- No ADRs found
- REDACTED
- Dormant codebase
- REDACTED
- IL efficiency: 5 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget docsTool/templates/modules.fs:45
- No ADRs
- No SAST
- Duplicated predicate docs/content/themes.js:76
Minor — 91 finding(s)
- Outdated: Humanizer.Core
- Outdated: System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Unsafe
- Outdated: altcover
- Outdated: Azure.Core
- Outdated: Azure.Identity
- Outdated: Castle.Core
- Outdated: Expecto
- Outdated: FSharp.Compiler.Service
- Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Framework
- Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Tasks.Core
- Outdated: Microsoft.Build.Utilities.Core
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Analyzers
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Common
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.CSharp.Workspaces
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.VisualBasic.Workspaces
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeAnalysis.Workspaces.Common
- Outdated: Microsoft.CodeCoverage
- Outdated: Microsoft.Identity.Client
- Outdated: Microsoft.Identity.Client.Extensions.Msal
- Outdated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens
- Outdated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Logging
- Outdated: Microsoft.IdentityModel.Protocols
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-73a92116eb2f4278bd47137dce5172e9/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-73a92116eb2f4278bd47137dce5172e9/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 6 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | nuget | — | nuget: not applicable — nuget: the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 4 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |