Executive summary
The system holds an adequate overall standing of 55%, reflecting a codebase that is technically sound but operationally fragile. While the underlying logic is robust, the organization lacks the maturity to sustain it confidently over time. This gap creates a hidden risk where future changes may become costly or error-prone, despite the system’s current stability.
The asset is small, comprising roughly 3,400 lines of production code with minimal boilerplate. Its value is concentrated in straightforward logic, and rebuilding it would cost approximately €4,700 and require just one engineer-month. This low rebuild cost is a double-edged sword: it means the system is not a critical strategic moat, but it also implies that the lack of institutional knowledge is a significant vulnerability. If the team changes, the context for this simple logic could vanish quickly.
The primary risk is Maturity Drift. With a maturity score of 43%, the system lacks the documented history and decision trails necessary for new engineers to pick up the work. This creates a dependency on tribal knowledge, increasing the cost of onboarding and the likelihood of regression bugs. The secondary concern is Operational Readiness, scored at 54%. The absence of automated coverage checks and outdated documentation means the team cannot reliably verify that changes work as intended, exposing the business to potential outages or defects slipping into production.
On the positive side, the code health and architecture are excellent, scoring near perfection. The logic is clean, linear, and free of complex branching, which minimizes technical debt and makes the system easy to understand for those who know it. This strong foundation provides a stable base for improvement.
The highest-leverage action is to record significant decisions in a structured format. By documenting the context and consequences of key choices, the team builds a reusable knowledge base that protects the asset from future turnover. This single step addresses the maturity gap most effectively, ensuring that the system’s simplicity is preserved and understood by whoever maintains it next.
Code Health
100% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
99% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
43%
Weak · gated by M2
Readiness
54%
Adequate · gated by P3
Security
59%
Adequate · gated by D36
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 43% · 47% weightReadiness 54% · 26% weightSecurity 59% · 14% weightArchitecture 99% · 8% weightCode Health 100% · 4% weight
Raise Maturity 43 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 55 → ~63.
Code composition — where the lines go
Plumbing 1%Tests 99%
New since the last scan (3+)
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,600–€7,800
| Cost to rebuild | €1,600–€7,800 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 55% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified for 3,429 line(s) outside the .NET model (the tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,700 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 43% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.
2
Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Huffman.fs.
3
Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 43%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 IO | 2 Http | 3 IO.BufferedParser | 4 Http.ChunkHeaderModule | 5 Http.ChunkModule | 6 Http.FieldModule | 7 Http.Fields | 8 Http.Hpack | 9 Http.Message | 10 Http.MessageBodyModule | 11 Http.Request | 12 Http.RequestLineModule | 13 Http.Response | 14 Http.StartLineModule | 15 Http.StatusLineModule | 16 Http.TargetModule | 17 IO.BufferedParser.Global | 18 IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult | 19 IO.BufferedParser.Parser | 20 Pipeline | 21 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests | 22 FryProxy | 23 Http.Fields.ConnectionModule | 24 Http.Fields.FieldModel | 25 Http.Fields.ViaModule | 26 Http.Hpack.CommandModule | 27 Http.Hpack.Decoder | 28 Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule | 29 Http.Hpack.Global | 30 Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule | 31 Http.Hpack.StringLitModule | 32 Http.Hpack.Table | 33 Pipeline.Handlers | 34 Pipeline.Middleware | 35 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests | 36 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests | 37 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests | 38 OpaqueTunnel | 39 Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests | 40 TransparentTunnel |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 IO | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 Http | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 IO.BufferedParser | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 Http.ChunkHeaderModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 Http.ChunkModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 Http.FieldModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 Http.Fields | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Http.Hpack | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 Http.Message | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 Http.MessageBodyModule | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 Http.Request | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 Http.RequestLineModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 Http.Response | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 Http.StartLineModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 Http.StatusLineModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 Http.TargetModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 IO.BufferedParser.Global | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 IO.BufferedParser.Parser | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 Pipeline | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests | 1 | 3 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 FryProxy | 2 | 2 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 Http.Fields.ConnectionModule | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 Http.Fields.FieldModel | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 Http.Fields.ViaModule | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 Http.Hpack.CommandModule | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 Http.Hpack.Decoder | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule | 1 | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 Http.Hpack.Global | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 Http.Hpack.StringLitModule | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 Http.Hpack.Table | 1 | 7 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 Pipeline.Handlers | 1 | 3 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 Pipeline.Middleware | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests | 6 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests | 3 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests | 4 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 OpaqueTunnel | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests | 2 | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 TransparentTunnel | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
2→1 Http depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http → type in IO) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.ChunkBody→FryProxy.IO.IByteBufferFryProxy.Http.MessageBody→FryProxy.IO.IByteBuffer
- Direction
- Http uses IO. Changing IO can break Http, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
3→1 IO.BufferedParser depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in IO.BufferedParser → type in IO) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.LazyIter`1→FryProxy.IO.IConsumableFryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.LazyIter`1→FryProxy.IO.ReadBufferFryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.ParseState→FryProxy.IO.IConsumable
- Direction
- IO.BufferedParser uses IO. Changing IO can break IO.BufferedParser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
4→2 Http.ChunkHeaderModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.ChunkHeaderModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.ChunkHeaderModule.ChunkHeaderModule→FryProxy.Http.ChunkHeader
- Direction
- Http.ChunkHeaderModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.ChunkHeaderModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
5→2 Http.ChunkModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.ChunkModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.ChunkModule.ChunkModule→FryProxy.Http.Chunk
- Direction
- Http.ChunkModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.ChunkModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
6→2 Http.FieldModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.FieldModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.FieldModule.FieldModule→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.FieldModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.FieldModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
7→2 Http.Fields depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Fields → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Fields.Connection→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.Fields uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Fields, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
8→2 Http.Hpack depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http.Hpack → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.FieldPack→FryProxy.Http.FieldFryProxy.Http.Hpack.TableEntry→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.Hpack uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Hpack, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
9→2 Http.Message depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 5 distinct (type in Http.Message → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Message.Message→FryProxy.Http.ChunkFryProxy.Http.Message.Message→FryProxy.Http.FieldFryProxy.Http.Message.Message→FryProxy.Http.MessageBodyFryProxy.Http.Message.Message→FryProxy.Http.MessageHeader`1FryProxy.Http.Message.Message→FryProxy.Http.Message`1
- Direction
- Http.Message uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Message, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
10→2 Http.MessageBodyModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http.MessageBodyModule → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.MessageBodyModule.MessageBodyModule→FryProxy.Http.ChunkFryProxy.Http.MessageBodyModule.MessageBodyModule→FryProxy.Http.MessageBody
- Direction
- Http.MessageBodyModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.MessageBodyModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
11→2 Http.Request depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Http.Request → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Request.Request→FryProxy.Http.MessageHeader`1FryProxy.Http.Request.Request→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Http.Request.Request→FryProxy.Http.Target
- Direction
- Http.Request uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Request, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→2 Http.RequestLineModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.RequestLineModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.RequestLineModule.RequestLineModule→FryProxy.Http.RequestLine
- Direction
- Http.RequestLineModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.RequestLineModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→2 Http.Response depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Http.Response → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Response.Response→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Http.Response.Response→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Http.Response.Response→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Http.Response uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Response, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→2 Http.StartLineModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.StartLineModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.StartLineModule.StartLineModule→FryProxy.Http.StartLine
- Direction
- Http.StartLineModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.StartLineModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→2 Http.StatusLineModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.StatusLineModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.StatusLineModule.StatusLineModule→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Http.StatusLineModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.StatusLineModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
16→2 Http.TargetModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.TargetModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.TargetModule.TargetModule→FryProxy.Http.Target
- Direction
- Http.TargetModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.TargetModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→3 IO.BufferedParser.Global depends on IO.BufferedParser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in IO.BufferedParser.Global → type in IO.BufferedParser) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.Global.Global→FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.BufferedParserBuilder
- Direction
- IO.BufferedParser.Global uses IO.BufferedParser. Changing IO.BufferedParser can break IO.BufferedParser.Global, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→3 IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult depends on IO.BufferedParser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult → type in IO.BufferedParser) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult.ParseResult→FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.ParseState
- Direction
- IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult uses IO.BufferedParser. Changing IO.BufferedParser can break IO.BufferedParser.ParseResult, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→1 IO.BufferedParser.Parser depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in IO.BufferedParser.Parser → type in IO) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.Parser.Parser→FryProxy.IO.ReadBuffer
- Direction
- IO.BufferedParser.Parser uses IO. Changing IO can break IO.BufferedParser.Parser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→3 IO.BufferedParser.Parser depends on IO.BufferedParser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in IO.BufferedParser.Parser → type in IO.BufferedParser) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.Parser.Parser→FryProxy.IO.BufferedParser.ParseState
- Direction
- IO.BufferedParser.Parser uses IO.BufferedParser. Changing IO.BufferedParser can break IO.BufferedParser.Parser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→2 Pipeline depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 4 distinct (type in Pipeline → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandlerChain`1→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandlerChain`1→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandler`1→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandler`1→FryProxy.Http.RequestLine
- Direction
- Pipeline uses Http. Changing Http can break Pipeline, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→1 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests → type in IO) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests.MaxForwardsTests→FryProxy.IO.MemoryByteSeq
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests uses IO. Changing IO can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→2 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests.MaxForwardsTests→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests.MaxForwardsTests→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests.MaxForwardsTests→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests uses Http. Changing Http can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.MaxForwardsTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→1 FryProxy depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in FryProxy → type in IO) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.TunnelConnectionFactory→FryProxy.IO.IConnectionFryProxy.TunnelFactory`1→FryProxy.IO.ReadBuffer
- Direction
- FryProxy uses IO. Changing IO can break FryProxy, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→2 FryProxy depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in FryProxy → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.TunnelConnectionFactory→FryProxy.Http.TargetFryProxy.TunnelFactory`1→FryProxy.Http.Target
- Direction
- FryProxy uses Http. Changing Http can break FryProxy, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→20 FryProxy depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 5 distinct (type in FryProxy → type in Pipeline) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.HttpProxy`1→FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandlerChain`1FryProxy.IResponseContext`1→FryProxy.Pipeline.IClientConnectionAware`1FryProxy.IResponseContext`1→FryProxy.Pipeline.ITunnelAware`2FryProxy.IResponseContext`1→FryProxy.Pipeline.IUpstreamConnectionAware`1FryProxy.Tunnel`1→FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandlerChain`1
- Direction
- FryProxy uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break FryProxy, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→2 Http.Fields.ConnectionModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Fields.ConnectionModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Fields.ConnectionModule.ConnectionModule→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.Fields.ConnectionModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Fields.ConnectionModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→7 Http.Fields.ConnectionModule depends on Http.Fields✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Fields.ConnectionModule → type in Http.Fields) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Fields.ConnectionModule.ConnectionModule→FryProxy.Http.Fields.Connection
- Direction
- Http.Fields.ConnectionModule uses Http.Fields. Changing Http.Fields can break Http.Fields.ConnectionModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→2 Http.Fields.FieldModel depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Fields.FieldModel → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Fields.FieldModel.FieldModel→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.Fields.FieldModel uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Fields.FieldModel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→7 Http.Fields.FieldModel depends on Http.Fields✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Fields.FieldModel → type in Http.Fields) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Fields.FieldModel.FieldModel→FryProxy.Http.Fields.IFieldModel`1
- Direction
- Http.Fields.FieldModel uses Http.Fields. Changing Http.Fields can break Http.Fields.FieldModel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→7 Http.Fields.ViaModule depends on Http.Fields✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Fields.ViaModule → type in Http.Fields) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Fields.ViaModule.ViaModule→FryProxy.Http.Fields.Hop
- Direction
- Http.Fields.ViaModule uses Http.Fields. Changing Http.Fields can break Http.Fields.ViaModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→8 Http.Hpack.CommandModule depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.CommandModule → type in Http.Hpack) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.CommandModule.CommandModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.CommandFryProxy.Http.Hpack.CommandModule.CommandModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Decoder`1
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.CommandModule uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.CommandModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
27→8 Http.Hpack.Decoder depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.Decoder → type in Http.Hpack) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Decoder.Decoder→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Decoder`1
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.Decoder uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.Decoder, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→2 Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule.FieldPackModule→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→8 Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule → type in Http.Hpack) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule.FieldPackModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.FieldPackFryProxy.Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule.FieldPackModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.PackOpts
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.FieldPackModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→8 Http.Hpack.Global depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.Global → type in Http.Hpack) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Global.Global→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.DecoderBuilder
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.Global uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.Global, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→8 Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule → type in Http.Hpack) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule.NumericLitModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Decoder`1FryProxy.Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule.NumericLitModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.NumericLit
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.NumericLitModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→8 Http.Hpack.StringLitModule depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.StringLitModule → type in Http.Hpack) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.StringLitModule.StringLitModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Decoder`1FryProxy.Http.Hpack.StringLitModule.StringLitModule→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.StringLit
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.StringLitModule uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.StringLitModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→2 Http.Hpack.Table depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.Table → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Field
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.Table uses Http. Changing Http can break Http.Hpack.Table, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→8 Http.Hpack.Table depends on Http.Hpack✕
- Type pairs
- 7 distinct (type in Http.Hpack.Table → type in Http.Hpack) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.CommandFryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.DynamicTableFryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.FieldPackFryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.LiteralFieldNameFryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.PackOptsFryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.StringLitFryProxy.Http.Hpack.Table.Table→FryProxy.Http.Hpack.TableEntry
- Direction
- Http.Hpack.Table uses Http.Hpack. Changing Http.Hpack can break Http.Hpack.Table, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→1 Pipeline.Handlers depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Pipeline.Handlers → type in IO) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.Handlers.Handlers→FryProxy.IO.ReadBuffer
- Direction
- Pipeline.Handlers uses IO. Changing IO can break Pipeline.Handlers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→2 Pipeline.Handlers depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Pipeline.Handlers → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.Handlers.Handlers→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Pipeline.Handlers.Handlers→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Pipeline.Handlers.Handlers→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Pipeline.Handlers uses Http. Changing Http can break Pipeline.Handlers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→20 Pipeline.Handlers depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Pipeline.Handlers → type in Pipeline) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.Handlers.Handlers→FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandlerChain`1FryProxy.Pipeline.Handlers.Handlers→FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandler`1
- Direction
- Pipeline.Handlers uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break Pipeline.Handlers, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→2 Pipeline.Middleware depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Pipeline.Middleware → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.Middleware.Middleware→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Pipeline.Middleware.Middleware→FryProxy.Http.RequestLine
- Direction
- Pipeline.Middleware uses Http. Changing Http can break Pipeline.Middleware, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→7 Pipeline.Middleware depends on Http.Fields✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Pipeline.Middleware → type in Http.Fields) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.Middleware.Middleware→FryProxy.Http.Fields.Hop
- Direction
- Pipeline.Middleware uses Http.Fields. Changing Http.Fields can break Pipeline.Middleware, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→20 Pipeline.Middleware depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Pipeline.Middleware → type in Pipeline) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Pipeline.Middleware.Middleware→FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandler`1
- Direction
- Pipeline.Middleware uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break Pipeline.Middleware, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→2 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 6 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.CaptureCtx→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.CaptureCtx→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.ConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.FieldFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.ConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.ConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.ConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests uses Http. Changing Http can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→20 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests → type in Pipeline) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests.CaptureCtx→FryProxy.Pipeline.IClientConnectionAware`1
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.ConnectionTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→2 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests.TunnelTests→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests.TunnelTests→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests.TunnelTests→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests uses Http. Changing Http can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→20 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests → type in Pipeline) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests.TunnelContext→FryProxy.Pipeline.ITunnelAware`2
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.TunnelTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→2 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 4 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests.UpstreamConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.FieldFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests.UpstreamConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests.UpstreamConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.RequestLineFryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests.UpstreamConnectionTests→FryProxy.Http.StatusLine
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests uses Http. Changing Http can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→20 Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests → type in Pipeline) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests.ConCtx→FryProxy.Pipeline.IUpstreamConnectionAware`1
- Direction
- Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break Tests.Pipeline.Middleware.UpstreamConnectionTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→1 OpaqueTunnel depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in OpaqueTunnel → type in IO) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.OpaqueTunnel.OpaqueTunnel→FryProxy.IO.IConnectionFryProxy.OpaqueTunnel.OpaqueTunnel→FryProxy.IO.ReadBuffer
- Direction
- OpaqueTunnel uses IO. Changing IO can break OpaqueTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→2 OpaqueTunnel depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in OpaqueTunnel → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.OpaqueTunnel.OpaqueTunnel→FryProxy.Http.Target
- Direction
- OpaqueTunnel uses Http. Changing Http can break OpaqueTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→22 OpaqueTunnel depends on FryProxy✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in OpaqueTunnel → type in FryProxy) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.OpaqueTunnel.OpaqueTunnel→FryProxy.TunnelConnectionFactoryFryProxy.OpaqueTunnel.OpaqueTunnel→FryProxy.TunnelFactory`1FryProxy.OpaqueTunnel.OpaqueTunnel→FryProxy.Tunnel`1
- Direction
- OpaqueTunnel uses FryProxy. Changing FryProxy can break OpaqueTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→2 Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests → type in Http) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests.ProxyTests→FryProxy.Http.Message`1FryProxy.Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests.ProxyTests→FryProxy.Http.RequestLine
- Direction
- Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests uses Http. Changing Http can break Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→22 Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests depends on FryProxy✕
- Type pairs
- 4 distinct (type in Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests → type in FryProxy) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests.ProxyTests→FryProxy.DefaultContextFryProxy.Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests.ProxyTests→FryProxy.HttpProxy`1FryProxy.Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests.ProxyTests→FryProxy.SettingsFryProxy.Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests.ProxyTests→FryProxy.SocketTimeouts
- Direction
- Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests uses FryProxy. Changing FryProxy can break Tests.Proxy.ProxyTests, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→1 TransparentTunnel depends on IO✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TransparentTunnel → type in IO) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.TransparentTunnel.TransparentTunnel→FryProxy.IO.ReadBuffer
- Direction
- TransparentTunnel uses IO. Changing IO can break TransparentTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→2 TransparentTunnel depends on Http✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TransparentTunnel → type in Http) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.TransparentTunnel.TransparentTunnel→FryProxy.Http.Target
- Direction
- TransparentTunnel uses Http. Changing Http can break TransparentTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→20 TransparentTunnel depends on Pipeline✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TransparentTunnel → type in Pipeline) reference.
- Which types
FryProxy.TransparentTunnel.TransparentTunnel→FryProxy.Pipeline.RequestHandlerChain`1
- Direction
- TransparentTunnel uses Pipeline. Changing Pipeline can break TransparentTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→22 TransparentTunnel depends on FryProxy✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in TransparentTunnel → type in FryProxy) references.
- Which types
FryProxy.TransparentTunnel.TransparentTunnel→FryProxy.TunnelConnectionFactoryFryProxy.TransparentTunnel.TransparentTunnel→FryProxy.TunnelFactory`1FryProxy.TransparentTunnel.TransparentTunnel→FryProxy.Tunnel`1
- Direction
- TransparentTunnel uses FryProxy. Changing FryProxy can break TransparentTunnel, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.9
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X12 · Repo
Unreachable branch
10.0
X13 · Repo
Undrained process stream
10.0
X16 · Repo
Unfloored truncation loop
10.0
X18 · Repo
Disposal-pattern correctness
10.0
X19 · Repo
Unrestored process-global state
10.0
X20 · Repo
Mistyped argument guard
10.0
X21 · Repo
Side-effecting pattern guard
10.0
X22 · Repo
Contradicted release guard
10.0
X23 · Repo
Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
10.0
X25 · Repo
Inert configuration knob
10.0
X26 · Repo
Unsynchronised callback handoff
10.0
X27 · Repo
Collection changed while being enumerated
10.0
X28 · Repo
Index access outside its own emptiness guard
10.0
X29 · Repo
Per-element action decided by a fixed element
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X30 · Repo
Support guard that admits what it rejects
10.0
X32 · Repo
Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
8.7
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Security
The Good
D28 · .NET / C#
Secrets (history)
10.0
D29 · .NET / C#
Static Analysis (SAST)
7.6
X14 · Repo
Bypassable address classification
10.0
X15 · Repo
Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
10.0
X17 · Repo
Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
10.0
X24 · Repo
Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
10.0
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2025 — Injection | 9 | High / Critical |
| A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures | 6 | Medium |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing a clear architectural record of significant decisions and grouping production code under a dedicated source directory to separate it from tooling. Next, update the root README to include a quick-start guide for new contributors and correct any inaccuracies regarding current implementation status. Finally, implement a changelog to track and communicate what has shipped in each release.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +6.2 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Huffman.fs. | +6.2 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). | +12.3 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +10.0 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). | +4.7 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Reconcile the README with reality: RFC HTTP/2.0 not yet implemented. | +7.8 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +7.1 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +7.0 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 2.7 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 3.0 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| FryProxy/Pipeline/Handlers.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) |
| README.md | 9.3 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Documentation: no installation or build instructions |
| FryProxy.Tests/FryProxy.Tests.fsproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Dependency Hygiene: Outdated: FsUnit |
How the grades work
Critical — 8
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 10
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 21
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 2
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. 57 of 60 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 0.9 — 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 — 60 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D11D12D13D14D15D17D19D21D26D27D28D29D34D35D36D44AX10AX3AX4AX5AX8GD1M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4X5
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 14 of 39 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 | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ 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
- 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. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (4 contributor(s) across 253 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 94% of the history; the other 3 hold 2% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The C# workspace loaded this repository's projects but reported a load failure, and the dead-code reference search is unreliable over a graph that did not load cleanly, so it was skipped. The other debt markers on this row were read; dead symbols were not, and their absence from the score is not a finding that the code has none. First load diagnostic: Failure: Cannot open project 'FryProxy/FryProxy.fsproj' because the file extension '.fsproj' is not associated with a language.
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (3,429 lines, 99% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
- D39 IL Efficiency — 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. IL NOT MEASURED: the analyzer's own build of this repository failed for an ENVIRONMENT reason (exit 1) — MSBuild's engine or the CLR gave up, or our image does not carry the SDK band/targeting pack this repository needs. This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo, and it is not a statement that this repository fails to build. D18 owns the question of whether this repository builds; it was not answered here.
- P5 DR & Backup — 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. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
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").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- 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.
- 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.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- 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 Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15. A further 1 method(s) were over the threshold but excluded as flat dispatchers (a long switch/match over independent cases: many branches, almost no nesting), the largest being ReasonPhrase.forStatusCode at 42 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score. 1 file carries no cyclomatic complexity row at all for this reason — every one of its over-threshold methods was excluded, so the exclusion is disclosed nowhere in the file itself: FryProxy/Http/ReasonPhrase.fs (ReasonPhrase.forStatusCode at 42). They are named here because the per-file figures other dimensions report are taken BEFORE this exclusion, so such a file can show a high maximum complexity elsewhere in this report and nothing here, with nothing to reconcile the two.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
1 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2)FryProxy/Pipeline/Handlers.fs:63
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with Handlers.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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 6 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). integration: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
8 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated, 2 prerelease packages.
Prerelease dependency: FsCheck
Outdated: FsUnitFryProxy.Tests/FryProxy.Tests.fsproj:20
Outdated: FSharp.Core
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Prerelease dependency finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Outdated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene — start with FryProxy.Tests.fsproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 114 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 7 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 107 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + unmeasured dead symbols across 19 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Dead code not measured: the solution did not load cleanly, so the reference search was skipped. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (99% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is a single cohesive document that clearly states what the project is (an RFC-compatible HTTP proxy library) and gives an excellent compositional example of its core request-processing pipeline. It describes key facts about default behavior (RFC-compliant, only HTTP/1.1 now; HTTP/2 planned for 2.0.0), a lightweight abstraction, tunneled-traffic decryption, and outgoing connection pooling. The document is rich in code examples and an outline of the API surface, but it does not yet show installation or usage steps (the example compiles/runs locally but no NuGet command appears) and there are no separate architecture/design docs to cover the internals.
Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Documentation finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 2 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
92 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 73 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 8.7/10. — 92 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 73 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
9 finding(s): 0 critical, 7 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 6 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.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 6 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 (6 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
10 of 17 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is FryProxy/Http/Hpack/Huffman.fs. Counted over 17 of the 55 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned knowledgeFryProxy/Http/Hpack/Huffman.fs
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Huffman.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 3 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.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net9.0
What to do
- Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree, with each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- RFC HTTP/2.0 not yet implemented — searched for: `HTTP/2.0`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: RFC HTTP/2.0 not yet implemented.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
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 1482 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X12 · Unreachable branch
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream
Do you agree with this assessment?
X14 · Bypassable address classification
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
Do you agree with this assessment?
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
Do you agree with this assessment?
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
Do you agree with this assessment?
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X22 · Contradicted release guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
Do you agree with this assessment?
X25 · Inert configuration knob
Do you agree with this assessment?
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 99% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 43% | Weak — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 54% | Adequate — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 59% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 56 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- 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
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — ~2074 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.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 3448 LoC across a single .NET project there is no scale to justify any boundaries. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. 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
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing 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.
- D39 IL Efficiency — IL not measured — the analyzer's build of the target did not succeed
- 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 — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 29 value object(s); 3 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
- 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 — reported, not scored — this repository's C# declares no analysable method bodies (a constants, record or DTO assembly), and this score is a density of unfinished work per method, which has no denominator here. The file-level signals below were still collected and are shown in full
- 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'.
- P2 Observability — This repository's F# source (1 module(s), 54 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- 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 — 8 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned knowledge FryProxy/Http/Hpack/Huffman.fs
Serious — 10 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Prerelease dependency: FsCheck
- Prerelease dependency: FsCheck.NUnit
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) FryProxy/Pipeline/Handlers.fs:63
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
- End-of-life runtime: .NET net9.0
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene
- NuGet dependencies are not locked
Minor — 14 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Documentation: no installation or build instructions README.md
- Documentation: no usage examples README.md
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: FsUnit FryProxy.Tests/FryProxy.Tests.fsproj:20
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No ADRs
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No architecture diagram/doc
M3 · Folder & project structure
- No src/ separation
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README/code drift
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No SAST
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No changelog
Minor — 7 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: FSharp.Core
- Outdated: FsCheck
- Outdated: FsCheck.NUnit
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: NUnit
- Outdated: NUnit3TestAdapter
- Outdated: Testcontainers
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-400d095f51ee43d1872e60d2b9fa9784/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-400d095f51ee43d1872e60d2b9fa9784/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 . | 9 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | nuget | — | nuget: not applicable — nuget: `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read). An unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| 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 | — |