Public report — elsa-core, published 5 Aug 2026.
Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version;
ask the repo owner for the full report.
430findings with an exact file:lineof 616 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
77/101dimensions across the health lenses131448 LoC · 261 projects — wide & deep
Executive summary
Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo — code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.
elsa-workflows/elsa-core is in a workable but fragile state (62%). It is not in crisis, but it carries material risk that makes change slower and incidents harder to contain if left unaddressed.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Maturity (81%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Security (55%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Accessibility (66%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Strengthen data-at-rest protection (Data Protection); Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects (Web-Security Posture); Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism (Audit Trail).
For scale: Large (~131,448 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~2.6 person-years (~1–5 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headlineWidth 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.
This codebase represents roughly ~2.6 person-years of build effort (about ~€380,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 55% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain Very high (×1.8) — microservices, CQRS, event-driven integration × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).
Top priorities
The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.
1
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
Value concentrated against a weak lens · Medium · Value at risk
This is a Large asset (~2.6 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 55%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
887 modules, 1697 dependencies — 14 dependency cycles, shown as the red cell(s) above the diagonal. Rows and columns are the same modules, ordered so that a module only depends on ones above it. A cell means the row depends on the column, and its number is how many type pairs create that dependency. Read one thing: is anything above the diagonal? A mark there is a dependency cycle. (A cycle is all this shows — an unusual but cycle-free dependency sits below the diagonal like any other.)
Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).
OWASP category
Findings
Severity
A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration
50
High / Critical
A03:2021 — Injection
47
High / Critical
A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures
28
High / Critical
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components
2
High / Critical
Roadmap
First, strengthen data-at-rest protection by encrypting sensitive columns and securely storing keys. Next, update weak cryptographic hashes to secure web communications and replace non-security uses with non-cryptographic alternatives. Then, implement a structural audit trail using an EF SaveChanges interceptor to log all sensitive changes. Finally, resolve the 25 secret findings in configuration files and address the 42 high-priority static analysis issues in the codebase.
Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.
Do this
Helps
Effort
Dimension
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
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. 70 of 77 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 7 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.
What we checked — 77 dimensions across the health lenses
Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 430 of 616 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.
Tools & methods
The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.
Method
Backs
Version
Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis
Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering
A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.
When something does degrade — a missing scanner, a shallow clone, an LLM hiccup — it is named here explicitly and its exact cause recorded in diagnostics.md, never absorbed silently into the score.
Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.
D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (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.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the test suite inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling: Boundary leakage is detected from type references across detected contexts — leaks that flow through primitives, serialization or shared infrastructure may not surface as a typed reference.
D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
D40 Network Egress Confinement: Egress confinement is read from committed Kubernetes manifests — a policy applied out-of-band (cluster-default deny, a service mesh, or a cloud firewall/security group off-repo) is invisible, and a present NetworkPolicy is declared config, not proof the cluster admission-controller actually enforces it at runtime.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement: Syscall/MAC confinement is read from committed manifests — a profile applied by a cluster-wide PodSecurity default or a mutating webhook off-repo isn't seen, and a declared seccomp/AppArmor profile is config presence, not proof the node's kernel actually loaded and enforced it.
AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
C3 Audit Trail: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — a working control configured outside the repository leaves no signal a static scan can credit.
C4 Data Retention: This control is scored from in-repo evidence only — its real-world effectiveness, exercised only at runtime, is outside a static scan.
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".
P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
LLM-set scores this run (7): D19, D20, D21, D22, D24, D25, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.
What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.
Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.
21 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ObjectConverter.ConvertTo at 73. 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 ObjectConverter.ConvertAnyDateType at 17 — they are counted neither in the figure above nor in this dimension's score.
+ 16 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 ObjectConverter.ConvertTo (cyclomatic 73) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with ObjectConverter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 WorkflowInstanceFilter.Apply (cyclomatic 44) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with WorkflowInstanceFilter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 AIOrchestrator.ExecuteChatAsync (cyclomatic 44) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with AIOrchestrator.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.
Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.
+ 30 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 2 VersionOptions.ToString (cognitive 21) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with VersionOptions.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 TypeExtensions.FindIEnumerable (cognitive 17) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with TypeExtensions.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 ObjectConverter.ConvertTo (cognitive 103) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with ObjectConverter.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").
Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.
What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.
Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.
+ 10 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.
Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.
Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.
Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.
What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.
Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.
Of 9 mechanizable ADRs, 8 are prevented by analyzers, 1 by tests, 0 exist only in prose. Coverage: 100 %. Cycles found: 0.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: How much of the code is actually exercised by tests.
Method: Coverage from coverlet runs or committed reports (Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov), computed per-file with structured exclusions for generated, trivial, and glue code. When the suite can't be built/run in-image AND no report is committed, coverage is reported NOT-MEASURED (excluded from the score) with the precondition to make it measurable — never a LoC-ratio proxy folded in as if measured. Deterministic.
Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d8_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.
Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.
1954 test methods: 1428 unit, 526 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.
Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.
3 skipped (3 with a documented reason), 1 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 1964 tests.
No assertions: ValidateInstance_MatchesRequiredFieldsIgnoringCasetest/unit/Elsa.Persistence.VNext.UnitTests/RuntimeEntityDefinitionValidatorTests.cs:110
Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.
Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: not included — too large to re-run within its budget; integration: not included — too large to re-run within its budget; other: measured (0 flaky).
What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.
Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.
Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.
Resolve the 2 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with appsettings.json (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.
Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.
What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.
Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.
Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor7.9 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").
Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.
111 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.cs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
What to do
Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 Further sole-owners (lower concentration) finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.
Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.
+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.
Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.
261 projects, 9673 source files, 167311 hand-written lines of code (114681 production / 52630 test), plus 41689 generated (machine-written code — designer, scaffolded and tool-emitted files — excluded from quality), 1378 inter-project edges (build status unknown — did not finish).
Resolve the 1 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with Elsa.Server.LoadBalancer.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.
The Elsa project has a strong documentation set: 18 README files plus architecture/design docs (52) and comprehensive XML-doc coverage across the source tree. The main document is an excellent overview of the workflow engine with a mental-model mermaid flowchart, a detailed page-map table linking every repo-level folder to its purpose, and dedicated wiki pages for each module (e.g. Elsa.Identity, Elsa.Http integration tests). Coverage is strong: 100% XML coverage for Elsa.Features, 94% for Elsa.Expressions, and the structured-logs module covers enable/authorization/studio/integration with a migration/config example. The Elsa project has an extensive documentation set: 18 README files plus 52 architecture/design markdown docs and high XML-doc coverage across the modules (41% to 100%). The core diagnostics packages are well documented with provider-neutral persistence guidance, OpenTelemetry collector routes, console-logs capture, and a dedicated dashboard API. The Server project covers secrets, rate limiting, and optional IngressRateLimiting registration, while testing extensions explain background-task shutdown. A video README and Git branching workflow extension round out the documentation. All visible sections are present in the outline; no missing content. The Elsa workflow project has an excellent documentation set: 18 README files plus architecture/design docs and comprehensive XML-doc coverage across the suite. The test-suite README for Concurrent Trigger Indexing is a well-written, fully illustrated fix-and-test example that shows problem description, three-layer solution, theory/scenario tests, and a full outline (ConcurrentIndexing_ShouldNotCreateDuplicates, Fact: ConcurrentWorkflowRefresh...). The workflow-runtime doc covers feature wiring, runtime stores, dispatch paths, distributed locks, and recovery; the workflow-management doc explains management entities, materializers, read-only mode, and when to change this layer. The API docs describe FastEndpoints registration, route prefixing, and endpoint categories. A testing guide maps test folders and a test-type selection table plus shared helpers. Despite being clipped in several places, all outlined sections are present and the quality is high. The repository is well documented with a strong Specs and ADRs system plus a Repository Map that organizes the multi-project solution. The README files are numerous (18) but not shown in this summary; the visible content covers two design-history systems (specs/ADR specs), an ADR index, and a top-level layout table mapping [src/apps], [src/modules], [src/common], [src/clients], [test/unit/integration/component/performance], and [build/doc/specs/design] paths. The repository map is complete with the outline visible ('Reference Hosts; Build And Package Files; How To Find Code Fast') for each major module family, giving strong structure.
Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.3/10. — The Elsa project has a strong documentation set: 18 README files plus architecture/design docs (52) and comprehensive XML-doc coverage across the source tree. The main document is an excellent overview of the workflow engine with a mental-model mermaid flowchart, a detailed page-map table linking every repo-level folder to its purpose, and dedicated wiki pages for each module (e.g. Elsa.Identity, Elsa.Http integration tests). Coverage is strong: 100% XML coverage for Elsa.Features, 94% for Elsa.Expressions, and the structured-logs module covers enable/authorization/studio/integration with a migration/config example. The Elsa project has an extensive documentation set: 18 README files plus 52 architecture/design markdown docs and high XML-doc coverage across the modules (41% to 100%). The core diagnostics packages are well documented with provider-neutral persistence guidance, OpenTelemetry collector routes, console-logs capture, and a dedicated dashboard API. The Server project covers secrets, rate limiting, and optional IngressRateLimiting registration, while testing extensions explain background-task shutdown. A video README and Git branching workflow extension round out the documentation. All visible sections are present in the outline; no missing content. The Elsa workflow project has an excellent documentation set: 18 README files plus architecture/design docs and comprehensive XML-doc coverage across the suite. The test-suite README for Concurrent Trigger Indexing is a well-written, fully illustrated fix-and-test example that shows problem description, three-layer solution, theory/scenario tests, and a full outline (ConcurrentIndexing_ShouldNotCreateDuplicates, Fact: ConcurrentWorkflowRefresh...). The workflow-runtime doc covers feature wiring, runtime stores, dispatch paths, distributed locks, and recovery; the workflow-management doc explains management entities, materializers, read-only mode, and when to change this layer. The API docs describe FastEndpoints registration, route prefixing, and endpoint categories. A testing guide maps test folders and a test-type selection table plus shared helpers. Despite being clipped in several places, all outlined sections are present and the quality is high. The repository is well documented with a strong Specs and ADRs system plus a Repository Map that organizes the multi-project solution. The README files are numerous (18) but not shown in this summary; the visible content covers two design-history systems (specs/ADR specs), an ADR index, and a top-level layout table mapping [src/apps], [src/modules], [src/common], [src/clients], [test/unit/integration/component/performance], and [build/doc/specs/design] paths. The repository map is complete with the outline visible ('Reference Hosts; Build And Package Files; How To Find Code Fast') for each major module family, giving strong structure.
Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).
Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.
Evaluated 14 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 7.2/10 (mixed — many ADRs miss context or consequences). 5 flagged with a specific gap.
Context and decision are both boilerplate filler; the body gives no rationale for why ADRs were chosen (vs. alternatives like a wiki or commit log) and no consequences beyond citing Nygard's articledoc/adr/0001-record-architecture-decisions.md
Consequences section begins but only one consequence (reflecting a failed state) is listed; trade-offs of the alternative considered are not mentioneddoc/adr/0002-fault-propagation-from-child-to-parent-activities.md
The decision is an internal design principle with no consequences/trade-offs; it is a one-line rule rather than a documented rationale and its costdoc/adr/0011-output-conversion-at-binding-is-synchronous.md
The decision is stated but consequences/trade-offs are not detailed (e.g. how clients consume the catalog vs hard-coding, loss of type-coercion for new converters)doc/adr/0013-output-converter-discovery-is-server-owned.md
The body is a list of linked ADRs and contains no single decision documentdoc/adr/toc.md
What to do
Resolve the 1 Context and decision are both boilerplate filler; the body gives no… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0001-record-architecture-decisions.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Consequences section begins but only one consequence (reflecting a… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0002-fault-propagation-from-child-to-parent-activities.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 The decision is an internal design principle with no… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0011-output-conversion-at-binding-is-synchronous.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.
What it measures: Whether domain types (IDs, enums, value objects) leak across bounded-context boundaries.
Method: Cross-context domain-type leakage via Roslyn structural classification (strongly-typed IDs / value objects) over every public surface. Exhaustive, deterministic, type-level aggregate-boundary check.
Coverage: Bounded contexts derived from NAMESPACE prefix (or graph-inferred where available); cross-boundary domain-type leakage then checked exhaustively over every public member of every type.
564 domain type(s) cross context boundaries across 72 contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) · ×24
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) · ×12
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) · ×9
Cross-context type StructuredLogEvent (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) · ×5
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) · ×4
+ 82 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 24 Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) finding(s) in Boundary Type-Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (24 warning-level).
Resolve the 12 Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core →… finding(s) in Boundary Type-Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core →… finding(s) in Boundary Type-Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Enforce Boundary Type-Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Detailed fixes: d23_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value / 10Strong◐ Sampled · advisory
What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.
What it measures: Whether the code actually follows the decisions recorded in the project's ADRs.
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature against ADRs plus a deterministic structural code summary; findings linked to repo-rooted ADR paths for traceability. Advisory.
What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.
Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.
41 finding(s): 0 critical, 41 high, 0 medium, 0 low. Remediation for historically-committed secrets is credential rotation — they remain in history regardless of later deletion.
Secret: generic-api-key · ×25src/apps/Elsa.ModularServer.Web/appsettings.json:59detected by gitleaks finding
Rotate the exposed credentials — git history can't be un-committed
What to do
Resolve the 25 Secret finding(s) in Secrets (history) — start with appsettings.json (19), appsettings.Development.json (3), Program.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (25 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Rotate the exposed credentials finding(s) in Secrets (history). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.
Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.
Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown · ×42.github/dependabot.yml:8detected by semgrep finding
Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext · ×5scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml:17detected by semgrep finding
What to do
Resolve the 42 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with packages.yml (22), bounty.yml (3), docker-ca.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (42 issue-level).
Resolve the 5 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with deployment.yaml (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
High IaC: DS-0002 · ×9docker/ElsaServer-Datadog.Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 · ×40scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yamldetected by trivy finding
Low IaC: DS-0026docker/ElsaServer-Datadog.Dockerfiledetected by trivy finding
What to do
Resolve the 40 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (26), service.yaml (4), role.yaml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (40 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with deployment.yaml (5), ElsaServer-Datadog.Dockerfile, ElsaServer.Dockerfile. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
Resolve the 1 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with ElsaServer-Datadog.Dockerfile. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.
Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.
26 of 534 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Models/FlowGraph.cs.
Further orphaned files (smaller)
✓ On the Gold path — maintain.
Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.
Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.
Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.
What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.
Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.
+ 1 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.
What to do
Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 PR-triggered workflow without a permissions block finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 Secret passed as a command-line argument finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs) per the OSV database — read natively from whatever lockfile the repository ships (Cargo, npm, Go, Python, Maven, RubyGems, …). D33 and D30 add ecosystem-specific scanners on top for npm and .NET.
Method: Multi-ecosystem dependency-CVE scan via osv-scanner --recursive (queries the osv.dev database + parses lockfiles natively across ecosystems: npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven/Gradle pom.xml/gradle.lockfile, PyPI requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock, Composer composer.lock, RubyGems Gemfile.lock, Hex mix.lock, pub pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer (8.0). NotApplicable only when the repo declares no supported non-.NET dependency lockfile (a NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain); coverage needs a resolved lockfile. Additive to D33 (trivy fs); exhaustive + deterministic, DB kept fresh.
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] · ×2src/modules/Elsa.Expressions.JavaScript.Libraries/ClientLib/package-lock.jsondetected by osv-scanner finding
What to do
Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with package-lock.json (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Detailed fixes: d38_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads restrict network EGRESS with a NetworkPolicy (or Cilium policy), limiting where a compromised pod can send data or reach a command-and-control server. Presence of committed egress-restricting policy, not runtime enforcement.
Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn — language-agnostic): Kubernetes workloads gate applicability; credits a NetworkPolicy / Cilium policy that restricts egress (policyTypes: [Egress] / egress rules). Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10, never a deduction — baseline misconfigs stay with D31). Deterministic.
What it measures: Whether Kubernetes workloads confine the kernel boundary — a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) plus an AppArmor/SELinux mandatory-access-control layer — shrinking the syscall attack surface a container escape would use. Presence of committed confinement config, not runtime enforcement.
Method: Deterministic YAML-manifest inspection (no external tool, no Roslyn): on Kubernetes workloads, credits a seccomp profile (RuntimeDefault/Localhost) and an AppArmor/SELinux MAC layer. Reward-leaning (neutral floor climbing to 10); NotApplicable without workloads. Deterministic.
Resolve the 1 No seccomp profile finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Resolve the 1 No AppArmor/SELinux confinement finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Detailed fixes: d41_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.
Other · Accessibility — Whether focus outlines aren't removed without a replacement, motion respects prefers-reduced-motion, and literal CSS colour pairs meet contrast — PARTIAL: inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS literals are read (hex/rgb/hsl/named), never computed/runtime/external-CDN colour. Static markup readiness, not a WCAG conformance claim.
Method: Static markup/CSS scan: inline outline:none/0, literal inline colour/background contrast against the 4.5:1 AA floor, and <style>-block animation without a prefers-reduced-motion guard. Deterministic but PARTIAL — only inline styles and in-repo CSS literals are visible.
Other · Accessibility — Whether accessibility is ENFORCED in the toolchain — an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set, e.g. eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y or vuejs-accessibility where the project lints JavaScript) and an automated accessibility assertion wired into tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or an equivalent) — on the Documented→Verified→Prevented ladder.
Method: Repo config/CI scan: an accessibility checker configured over the markup (an a11y lint rule set such as eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility where JavaScript is linted) and an automated accessibility assertion in tests or CI (axe/pa11y/Lighthouse or equivalent), graded on the Documented→Verified→Prevented rungs. Deterministic, presence/rung detection.
No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y, then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.
Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.
`ActivityVisitor` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IEnumerable portResolvers`, which is registered as Scoped. The singleton captures one instance of the scoped dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IActivityResolver` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. — ActivityVisitor.cs:6
What to do
Don't inject scoped/transient services into singletons; resolve them per-use via IServiceScopeFactory or a factory delegate, or align the lifetimes.
Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.
Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.
Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.
What to do
The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.
Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.
`SerializationTypeRegistry` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_typeAliasDictionary, _aliasTypeDictionary; e.g. `_typeAliasDictionary` at line 34). — SerializationTypeRegistry.cs:6
`WellKnownTypeRegistry` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_typeAliasDictionary, _aliasTypeDictionary; e.g. `_typeAliasDictionary` at line 42). — WellKnownTypeRegistry.cs:8
`RecurringTaskScheduleManager` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (ScheduledTasks; e.g. `ScheduledTasks` at line 16). — RecurringTaskScheduleManager.cs:6
`NotificationPipeline` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_pipeline; e.g. `_pipeline` at line 17). — NotificationPipeline.cs:6
`CommandPipeline` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_pipeline; e.g. `_pipeline` at line 27). — CommandPipeline.cs:6
`RequestPipeline` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_pipeline; e.g. `_pipeline` at line 17). — RequestPipeline.cs:6
What to do
Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).
Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.
Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.
Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').
Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.
`IWorkflowBuilder` declares 42 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWorkflowBuilder.cs:10
`IWorkflowDefinitionStore` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWorkflowDefinitionStore.cs:11
`IWorkflowInstanceManager` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWorkflowInstanceManager.cs:12
`IWorkflowInstanceStore` declares 19 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWorkflowInstanceStore.cs:12
`IWorkflowRuntime` declares 16 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWorkflowRuntime.cs:16
`IWorkflowDefinitionsApi` declares 24 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. — IWorkflowDefinitionsApi.cs:14
What to do
Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX7 · Slice cohesion4.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether feature slices stay independent (no direct cross-slice references) — the discipline that makes vertical-slice architecture pay off.
Method: Roslyn scan (vertical-slice gated): feature slices resolved from namespaces (.Features.*, .Slices.*) or project names; cross-slice type references detected. Deterministic, traceable.
`InstalledFeatureProvider` (slice 'Services') depends on `IInstalledFeatureRegistry` from slice 'Contracts'. — InstalledFeatureProvider.cs:13
What to do
Keep slices independent: share cross-slice needs via an explicit contract/shared-kernel, not direct references between slices.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.
Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.
Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.
What to do
Strengthen data-at-rest protection: vault your keys (Azure Key Vault / AWS KMS / IDataProtector key ring) and encrypt the most sensitive columns (EF HasConversion encryption or provider-native column encryption) — partial coverage still leaves gaps.
Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
Other · Security — Whether access is authorized by default — a framework authorization attribute/decorator or policy, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.
Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C3 · Audit Trail7.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether changes to sensitive data are recorded (who, what, when) for compliance + incident response.
An audit mechanism is present, but the trail is not yet complete — missing: an immutable audit-log / audit-trail type to write to, [Audited] per-entity coverage.
What to do
Back the audit convention with a structural mechanism: an EF SaveChanges interceptor (or equivalent) writing every sensitive change to an immutable audit log, and apply [Audited] to the entities that need a who-changed-what trail.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C4 · Data Retention10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified
Other · Security — Whether data has a defined lifetime — retention periods, TTLs, cleanup jobs (storage limitation).
Method: Roslyn scan: retention/TTL configuration presence in schema; CascadeDelete detected but not scored as retention control. Deterministic, gated by PII presence.
Other · Event-Driven — Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).
Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.
Other · Event-Driven — Whether state changes and message publishes are atomic (a transactional outbox) rather than a crash-unsafe dual write.
Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler methods scanned for DB-save plus bus-publish without a transactional outbox reference. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.
Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.
A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×4) — JsonIgnoreCompositeRootConverter.cs:18, RootActivityNodeConverter.cs:27, DownloadableContentHandlerBase.cs:38, …
A placeholder string ("CHANGE_ME_TO_A_SECURE_RANDOM_KEY") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — ValidateIdentityTokenOptions.cs:19
A placeholder string ("A replacement value is required.") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — TextSecretTypeProvider.cs:34
A placeholder string ("A replacement configuration key is requi…") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — TextSecretTypeProvider.cs:40
What to do
Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.
`Read` is a shipped member whose whole body throws NotImplementedException — scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×3) — HttpStatusCodeCaseForWorkflowInstanceConverter.cs:12, JsonIgnoreCompositeRootConverter.cs:16, RootActivityNodeConverter.cs:25
`OnScheduleOutcomesAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — Flowchart.Counters.cs:370
A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×6) — Runtime.cs:32, Runtime.cs:33, ActivityExecutionContextExtensions.InputEvaluation.cs:157, …
What to do
Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.
Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.
What to do
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Add a README to the 109 of 119 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.
Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).
Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.
README omits the Elsa AI Copilot project (AI.Copilot)
README omits the Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry project
README omits the Elsa.Dashboard.Api project
README omits the Elsa.AI.Persistence.EFCore project
README omits the Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs project
What to do
Reconcile the README with reality: README omits the Elsa AI Copilot project (AI.Copilot); README omits the Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry project; README omits the Elsa.Dashboard.Api project; README omits the Elsa.AI.Persistence.EFCore project; README omits the Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs project.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.
Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.
Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.
9531/10774 types (88%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
What to do
Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Only 31/68 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log). Of those 68, 4 ship a process this repository operates; the rest are libraries their consumer hosts, where the logging decision belongs to the host.
What to do
Extend structured logging across the projects you operate, and give the library ones a diagnostics seam instead — an `EventSource`/`ActivitySource` the host can subscribe to, or an optional logger on your options object — rather than taking a logging dependency on your consumers' behalf.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).
Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.
What to do
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.
Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified
Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.
Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.
What to do
Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a benchmark suite, allocation/memory measurement, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.
Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.
Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's memory manager — buffer/slice views over copies, object pooling, stack or value-type allocation, and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.
Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 982 use(s) across 162,053 production line(s) (~6.1/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.
Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.
1 blocking call(s) on async work (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) — these waste a thread and can deadlock in a consumer with a synchronization context.
Only 194/3032 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
What to do
Make the call chain async end-to-end and await it — never block on a Task with .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() in library code.
In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).
MD5/SHA1 is constructed here, and both are collision-broken. If this digest protects anything — a signature, an integrity or tamper check, a credential, or any value an attacker can influence — that is a real weakness: use SHA-256+ for content integrity, or a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. If it only derives a non-security identifier (a cache key, a file or mutex name), collision resistance carries no security consequence here; make that intent explicit instead — a non-cryptographic hash such as `System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32` says it in code — since the algorithm alone cannot distinguish the two uses. — WriteFileHttpResponse.cs:171
No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
No UseHttpsRedirection/UseHsts and no reverse-proxy signal — transport security is unverified at the app layer. (−2.0 on this card.)
What to do
Review each MD5/SHA1 use by what it protects: replace it with SHA-256+ (or a KDF for passwords) where the digest is security-relevant, and switch it to a non-cryptographic hash (`System.IO.Hashing.XxHash64`/`Crc32`) where it only derives an identifier such as a cache key or a mutex name.
Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
Enforce HTTPS at the app layer (UseHttpsRedirection / UseHsts) — only skip this if a reverse proxy demonstrably terminates TLS.
Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.
Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` wastes a thread and, if the task needs a context this one is holding, deadlocks. `Dispose()` returns void by contract, so it cannot simply `await`: signal the work to stop first (cancel its token, set its stop flag) so the wait is short, give the wait a TIMEOUT so a hung task cannot hang shutdown, and — where callers can use it — add an awaitable teardown (`DisposeAsync`/`StopAsync`) beside the synchronous one and let `Dispose()` remain the bounded fallback. — ElsaConsoleLogProvider.cs:67
Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).
Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.
Only 1142/1374 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so in-flight work can't be stopped early when the caller gives up — whatever ends it in your host (shutdown signal, timeout, abandoned request, user cancel). Thread a token through the call chain and honour it at each await and loop; where a method genuinely cannot be interrupted, omitting it is a deliberate choice — judge against your hosting model.
No CancellationToken parameter — this work can't be stopped early once started. (×25) — JsonSerializationErrorHandlerMiddleware.cs:11, WorkflowInstanceHub.cs:38, Activity.cs:176, …
What to do
Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.
An empty catch block silently discards the error — failures vanish with no log and no rethrow. Log it, handle it, or don't catch it. — DataProtectorTokenService.cs:57
Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.
Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.
Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. If these calls go through a logging wrapper that only accepts a pre-formatted string, give the wrapper a template+args overload that forwards to the underlying logger, then migrate call sites to it. (×2) — JobQueue.cs:26, Penguin.cs:35
Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.
Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.
76/77 NRT-eligible project(s) enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> (projects targeting a pre-C#-8 framework are excluded — NRTs aren't available there). NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
~1.6 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 1251 suppression(s) across the 790589 syntax node(s) in code where nullable warnings are ENABLED, which is the only code a `!` can suppress anything in (a `!` under `#nullable disable` is inert and is not counted, and its file's nodes are not in the denominator). Each one tells the compiler to trust you about null, suppressing the very safety NRTs provide.
What to do
Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
Statically assessed 2 of 55 WCAG 2.2 Level A/AA success criteria (4%; ≈4% of the 50 WCAG 2.1 AA criteria for EN 301 549). The other 53 require runtime or manual evaluation. Partial signal only (a clean result is necessary, not sufficient; static analysis fully verifies none). This is accessibility readiness, not a conformance claim — a WCAG conformance claim requires manual evaluation (WCAG-EM 1.0).
The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.
Not included — 24 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.
AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
AC2 Forms & labels — No form control/button found in the parsed markup — AC2 not applicable here.
AC3 Page structure — No structural check found in the parsed markup — AC3 not applicable here.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a vertical-slice + CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — the solution did not restore on the analyzer's .NET SDK (an SDK/target-framework/restore mismatch, common for an older codebase), so there was no restored dependency graph to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored; re-run on an SDK that can restore this solution
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
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 — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.
DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 65 value object(s); 9 domain event(s)
ED2 Event/command shape — no command-shaped messages detected — single-handler-per-command check not applicable
ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.
High: dependabot-missing-cooldown .github/dependabot.yml:8— This Dependabot configuration does not set a cooldown period. Newly published packages can be malicious or unstable. Add a `cooldown` block with `default-days: 7` to each `package-ecosystem` entry under `updates` to wait 7 days before proposing updates to newly published package versions. Reference: https://docs.github.com/en/code-security/dependabot/dependabot-version-updates/configuration-options-for-the-dependabot.yml-file#cooldown. This is a semgrep security-AUDIT rule reporting a POLICY that is absent or weaker than its recommendation, not an exploitable defect. Confirm whether the current setting is a deliberate decision for this repository — and apply the change where it is not; where it is (a policy your release process already enforces elsewhere, or one this repository has consciously opted out of), record the decision and leave the configuration as it is.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/bounty.yml:13— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v2`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v2 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/bounty.yml:17— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: jaywcjlove/github-action-read-file@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `jaywcjlove/github-action-read-file@main`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/jaywcjlove/github-action-read-file/commits/main --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/bounty.yml:22— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/github-script@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/github-script@v7`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/github-script/commits/v7 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml:30— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/claude-code-review.yml:36— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `anthropics/claude-code-action@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/anthropics/claude-code-action/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/claude.yml:29— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/claude.yml:35— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `anthropics/claude-code-action@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/anthropics/claude-code-action/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/copilot-setup-steps.yml:14— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/copilot-setup-steps.yml:17— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker-ca.yml:46— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker-ca.yml:49— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/docker-ca.yml:57— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: docker/setup-buildx-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `docker/setup-buildx-action@v3`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/docker/setup-buildx-action/commits/v3 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/greploop.yml:68— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/greploop.yml:114— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: anthropics/claude-code-action@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `anthropics/claude-code-action@v1`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/anthropics/claude-code-action/commits/v1 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:32— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:35— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:45— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/cache@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/cache@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/cache/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:108— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:119— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:122— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/setup-dotnet@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/setup-dotnet@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/setup-dotnet/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:132— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/cache@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/cache@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/cache/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:200— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:207— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/upload-artifact@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/upload-artifact@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/upload-artifact/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/packages.yml:222— GitHub Actions step uses a mutable tag or branch reference. Tags and branch names can be silently repointed by the action owner, enabling supply-chain attacks — as seen in the trivy-action and kics-github-action compromises. Pin the reference to a full 40-character commit SHA instead, e.g. `uses: actions/checkout@<40-character SHA>`. This step references `actions/checkout@v4`; resolve the SHA it points at today with `gh api repos/actions/checkout/commits/v4 --jq .sha`.
High IaC: DS-0002 docker/ElsaServer-Datadog.Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
High IaC: DS-0002 docker/ElsaServer.Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
High IaC: DS-0002 docker/ElsaServerAndStudio.Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
High IaC: DS-0002 docker/ElsaStudio.Dockerfile— Image user should not be 'root' A container that starts as root runs your process with root's capabilities inside the namespace, so a compromise of the process starts from there. The step: create an unprivileged account in the image (`RUN adduser --system --no-create-home app`), give it ownership of the paths the process writes at runtime (`COPY --chown=` on those layers, or a `RUN chown -R`), and end the final stage with `USER app` so it is the default at start. Build stages that only compile can stay root; it is the stage that RUNS that needs the account. If the process genuinely requires root — it manages the container runtime, ptraces another process or opens raw devices — say so here rather than making a change that breaks it.
High IaC: KSV-0014 scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml— Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0014 scripts/k8s/elsa-studio/deployment.yaml— Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0014 scripts/k8s/plant-uml/deployment.yaml— Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0014 scripts/k8s/postgres/deployment.yaml— Root file system is not read-only
High IaC: KSV-0014 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml— Root file system is not read-only
NoWarnInCsproj — 10 warning codes suppressed in one element Directory.Build.props:39— A single <NoWarn> suppresses 10 warning codes (IL2026;IL2046;IL2057;IL2067;IL2070;IL2072;IL2075;IL2087;IL2091;IL2111) in one stroke — one team-wide decision, not 10 independent debts. Review the set centrally rather than code-by-code; each code you can re-enable is one less blanket suppression. (Every code still counts toward the score and metrics.)
NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:35— CS0162 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/apps/Directory.Build.props:8— CS0162 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:35— CS1591 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj src/apps/Directory.Build.props:8— CS1591 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
NoWarnInCsproj Directory.Build.props:37— CS0618 — this warning is switched off for the WHOLE project, in every file it builds, including code written years from now: nothing at the call site records that the rule was ever silenced, so the next reader has no reason to look here. Fix what the rule is reporting and drop the code from the list, or — if some occurrences really are legitimate — narrow the suppression to those sites and give each one its reason, so the rule keeps protecting the rest of the project.
Leaked secret: signing-key src/apps/Elsa.Server.Web/appsettings.json:80— signing-key detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.
Leaked secret: signing-key src/apps/Elsa.ModularServer.Web/appsettings.json:38— signing-key detected. Treat the value as compromised: it is readable by everyone who has ever had the repository, and deleting the line does not un-publish it. In order — (1) REVOKE it at whatever issued it and issue a replacement, which is the only step that actually closes the exposure; (2) load the replacement at run time from your platform's secret store or the process environment instead of from the tree, so no future value is committable; (3) remove the file or line and add its path to the repository's ignore rules, so it cannot come back; (4) if the value was ever live, purge it from the history as well, since a clone taken before the deletion still carries it. If this is instead a FIXTURE — key material generated for tests and valid nowhere — then the exposure is nil and the fix is to make that legible: generate it in test setup, or keep it under a test-data path, so a reader (and this scan) can tell it from the real thing.
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities· High CVE · ×2
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] src/modules/Elsa.Expressions.JavaScript.Libraries/ClientLib/package-lock.json— fast-uri 3.1.2: [GHSA redacted] — fast-uri is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin fast-uri to 3.1.3 with an `overrides` entry). This is 1 of 3 advisories with a published fix this scan raises against fast-uri 3.1.2, and their fixed versions do not agree — anything below 3.1.5 still leaves at least one of them open. Take this package to 3.1.5 or later: that is the floor for the package, not this row's target alone. This one row stands for the 3 advisories this scan raises against fast-uri 3.1.2: [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted], [GHSA redacted].
High CVE: [GHSA redacted] design/video/elsa-readme-video/package-lock.json— fast-uri 3.1.4: [GHSA redacted] — fast-uri is not declared in this repo's manifests: it is pulled in transitively, so upgrade the dependency that requires it (or pin fast-uri to 3.1.5 with an `overrides` entry).
EmptyCatchBlock src/modules/Elsa.SasTokens/Contracts/DataProtectorTokenService.cs:57— empty catch block — the error is discarded with nothing recorded, so a failure here leaves no trace anywhere. Narrow the catch to the exception you actually expect, record it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, or — where swallowing really is correct, as it often is on a teardown/dispose path where throwing would mask the original failure — write down WHY in a comment on the catch. The comment has to give the reason: a note that only restates the swallow ("ignored", "do nothing") is read as no explanation at all and leaves this row in place. Any of the three makes the decision reviewable; all three clear this row.
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml— Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml— Runs as root user One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0012, KSV-0020, KSV-0021.
Medium IaC: KSV-0013 scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml— Image tag ":latest" used
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml— Seccomp policies disabled One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0030, KSV-0104.
Medium IaC: KSV-0048 scripts/k8s/elsa-server/role.yaml— Manage Kubernetes workloads and pods
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 scripts/k8s/elsa-studio/deployment.yaml— Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 scripts/k8s/elsa-studio/deployment.yaml— Runs as root user One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0012, KSV-0020, KSV-0021.
Medium IaC: KSV-0013 scripts/k8s/elsa-studio/deployment.yaml— Image tag ":latest" used
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 scripts/k8s/elsa-studio/deployment.yaml— Seccomp policies disabled One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0030, KSV-0104.
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 scripts/k8s/plant-uml/deployment.yaml— Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 scripts/k8s/plant-uml/deployment.yaml— Runs as root user One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0012, KSV-0020, KSV-0021.
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 scripts/k8s/plant-uml/deployment.yaml— Seccomp policies disabled One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0030, KSV-0104.
Medium IaC: KSV-0125 scripts/k8s/plant-uml/deployment.yaml— Restrict container images to trusted registries
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 scripts/k8s/postgres/deployment.yaml— Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 scripts/k8s/postgres/deployment.yaml— Runs as root user One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0012, KSV-0020, KSV-0021.
Medium IaC: KSV-0013 scripts/k8s/postgres/deployment.yaml— Image tag ":latest" used
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 scripts/k8s/postgres/deployment.yaml— Seccomp policies disabled One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0030, KSV-0104.
Medium IaC: KSV-0001 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml— Can elevate its own privileges
Medium IaC: KSV-0012 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml— Runs as root user One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0012, KSV-0020, KSV-0021.
Medium IaC: KSV-0013 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml— Image tag ":latest" used
Medium IaC: KSV-0104 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml— Seccomp policies disabled One securityContext edit clears this facet's near-duplicate rules together: KSV-0030, KSV-0104.
Medium IaC: KSV-0125 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml— Restrict container images to trusted registries
Medium IaC: CKV_K8S_21 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/service.yaml:1— The default namespace should not be used
Medium IaC: CKV_K8S_21 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/service.yaml:15— The default namespace should not be used
Medium IaC: CKV_K8S_37 scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml:1— Minimize the admission of containers with capabilities assigned
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunActivityExtensions.RunActivityAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via .RunActivityAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivityExecuted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivityNotExecuted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivityCompleted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivityStatus — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivitiesExecuted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivitiesNotExecuted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivitiesCompleted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertActivityExecutionCount — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertWorkflowCompleted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultAssertions.AssertWorkflowStatus — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.GetActivityContext — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.WasExecuted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.WasCompleted — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.GetActivityStatus — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.GetExecutedActivities — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.GetCompletedActivities — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via RunWorkflowResultExtensions.GetExecutionCount — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowTestFixture.RunWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowTestFixture.RunActivityAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowTestFixture.GetOutcomes — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowTestFixture.HasOutcome — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowTestFixture.GetActivityStatus — couples the contexts.
TodoComment src/common/Elsa.Mediator/Middleware/Notification/Components/NotificationLoggingMiddleware.cs:20— // TODO: Log notification. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Alterations/Services/DefaultAlterationRunner.cs:91— // TODO: Importing back into the workflow runtime makes sense, but this also causes another SAVE ction of the workflow instance in the DB, which also happens in the previous step during the commit action. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Expressions.Liquid/Services/LiquidTemplateManager.cs:61— // TODO: add signal based cache invalidation. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Http/Activities/WriteFileHttpResponse.cs:153— // TODO: Delete the cached file after the workflow completes. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Http/DownloadableContentHandlers/UrlDownloadableContentHandler.cs:35— // TODO: Uncomment the next two lines if we implement file caching for this handler. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Http/Parsers/TextHtmlHttpContentParser.cs:8— // TODO: found a library to use a Html Content Parser and use a complexe object Type, until this, this class allow to accept request send using text/html content-type — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/ParallelForEachT.cs:73— // TODO: This should be configurable, because this won't work for e.g. file streams and other non-serializable types. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.cs:709— // TODO: Check if we should not use the target subStatus here instead. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Extensions/ActivityExecutionContextExtensions.InputEvaluation.cs:156— // TODO: Disable filtering for now until we redesign log sanitization. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Services/WorkflowStateExtractor.cs:79— // TODO: This is a temporary solution. We need to find a better way to handle this. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Mappers/VariableDefinitionMapper.cs:108— // TODO: The following code handles backward compatibility with variable definitions referencing older .NET type namespaces. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Mappers/WorkflowDefinitionMapper.cs:96— // TODO: Remove this in the future when users have migrated workflows to use the new UsableAsActivity options property. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment test/unit/Elsa.Activities.UnitTests/Http/HttpEndpointTests.cs:15— // TODO: Once `HttpEndpoint` is updated to produce a fault, update this test accordingly. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via IWorkflowCanceler.CancelWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via IWorkflowHost.WorkflowGraph — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via IWorkflowHostFactory.CreateAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via IWorkflowInvoker.InvokeAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via TriggerBoundWorkflow..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via TriggerBoundWorkflow.WorkflowGraph — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via TriggerBoundWorkflow.Deconstruct — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowCanceler.CancelWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowHost..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowHost.WorkflowGraph — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowHostFactory.CreateAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowInvoker.InvokeAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via IWorkflowDefinitionService.MaterializeWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via IWorkflowDefinitionService.FindWorkflowGraphAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowGraphFindResult..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowGraphFindResult.WorkflowGraph — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowGraphFindResult.Deconstruct — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via CachingWorkflowDefinitionService.MaterializeWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via CachingWorkflowDefinitionService.FindWorkflowGraphAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowDefinitionService.MaterializeWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowGraph (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — WorkflowGraph (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowDefinitionService.FindWorkflowGraphAsync — couples the contexts.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Common/Serialization/SerializationTypeResolver.cs:280— #pragma warning disable IL2055 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Expressions.JavaScript/TypeDefinitions/Services/TypeDescriber.cs:43— #pragma warning disable IL2070 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.MySql/DbContextFactories.cs:13— #pragma warning disable CS1591 // Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.Oracle/DbContextFactories.cs:12— #pragma warning disable CS1591 // Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.PostgreSql/DbContextFactories.cs:14— #pragma warning disable CS1591 // Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.SqlServer/DbContextFactories.cs:12— #pragma warning disable CS1591 // Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.Sqlite/DbContextFactories.cs:13— #pragma warning disable CS1591 // Missing XML comment for publicly visible type or member — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
BarePragmaDisable src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Mappers/WorkflowDefinitionMapper.cs:98— #pragma warning disable CS0618 — the disable has no matching restore, so it does not end with the construct that needed it: it runs to the end of the file and silences the rule for everything written below, including code added years later. Close it with the matching restore directive immediately after the construct it covers, or fix the cause and drop the directive entirely.
Hotspot: src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Filters/WorkflowInstanceFilter.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Filters/WorkflowInstanceFilter.cs— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Filters/WorkflowInstanceFilter.cs changed 6 times in last 90 days, max complexity 44. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.cs— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.cs changed 12 times in last 90 days, max complexity 16. Frequent change and high complexity in one file compound: schedule the next change to it to include carving out the part being edited, behind tests written first.
Hotspot: src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs changed 3 times in last 90 days, max complexity 29. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 23. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs— src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 18. 2 of those changes were fix/bug commits, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Hotspot: src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore/Modules/Management/WorkflowDefinitionStore.cs src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore/Modules/Management/WorkflowDefinitionStore.cs— src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore/Modules/Management/WorkflowDefinitionStore.cs changed 2 times in last 90 days, max complexity 18. 1 of those changes was a fix/bug commit, so the churn is repair rather than feature work. Before the next change lands here, cover the area it touches with tests, then split that area out of the file so the following change is smaller than this one — a file this often edited pays the complexity back every time.
Cross-context type StructuredLogEvent (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogEvent (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via RelationalStructuredLogMapper.Map — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogEvent (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogEvent (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via StructuredLogWriteBuffer.WriteAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogEvent (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogEvent (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via StructuredLogWriteBuffer.WriteManyAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogEvent (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogEvent (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via RelationalStructuredLogStore.WriteAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogEvent (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogEvent (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via RelationalStructuredLogStore.WriteManyAsync — couples the contexts.
Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext scripts/k8s/elsa-server/deployment.yaml:17— In Kubernetes, each pod runs in its own isolated environment with its own set of security policies. However, certain container images may contain `setuid` or `setgid` binaries that could allow an attacker to perform privilege escalation and gain access to sensitive resources. To mitigate this risk, it's recommended to add a `securityContext` to the container in the pod, with the parameter `allowPrivilegeEscalation` set to `false`. This will prevent the container from running any privileged processes and limit the impact of any potential attacks. By adding a `securityContext` to your Kubernetes pod, you can help to ensure that your containerized applications are more secure and less vulnerable to privilege escalation attacks.
Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext scripts/k8s/elsa-studio/deployment.yaml:16— In Kubernetes, each pod runs in its own isolated environment with its own set of security policies. However, certain container images may contain `setuid` or `setgid` binaries that could allow an attacker to perform privilege escalation and gain access to sensitive resources. To mitigate this risk, it's recommended to add a `securityContext` to the container in the pod, with the parameter `allowPrivilegeEscalation` set to `false`. This will prevent the container from running any privileged processes and limit the impact of any potential attacks. By adding a `securityContext` to your Kubernetes pod, you can help to ensure that your containerized applications are more secure and less vulnerable to privilege escalation attacks.
Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext scripts/k8s/plant-uml/deployment.yaml:16— In Kubernetes, each pod runs in its own isolated environment with its own set of security policies. However, certain container images may contain `setuid` or `setgid` binaries that could allow an attacker to perform privilege escalation and gain access to sensitive resources. To mitigate this risk, it's recommended to add a `securityContext` to the container in the pod, with the parameter `allowPrivilegeEscalation` set to `false`. This will prevent the container from running any privileged processes and limit the impact of any potential attacks. By adding a `securityContext` to your Kubernetes pod, you can help to ensure that your containerized applications are more secure and less vulnerable to privilege escalation attacks.
Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext scripts/k8s/postgres/deployment.yaml:16— In Kubernetes, each pod runs in its own isolated environment with its own set of security policies. However, certain container images may contain `setuid` or `setgid` binaries that could allow an attacker to perform privilege escalation and gain access to sensitive resources. To mitigate this risk, it's recommended to add a `securityContext` to the container in the pod, with the parameter `allowPrivilegeEscalation` set to `false`. This will prevent the container from running any privileged processes and limit the impact of any potential attacks. By adding a `securityContext` to your Kubernetes pod, you can help to ensure that your containerized applications are more secure and less vulnerable to privilege escalation attacks.
Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext scripts/k8s/trace-lens/deployment.yaml:16— In Kubernetes, each pod runs in its own isolated environment with its own set of security policies. However, certain container images may contain `setuid` or `setgid` binaries that could allow an attacker to perform privilege escalation and gain access to sensitive resources. To mitigate this risk, it's recommended to add a `securityContext` to the container in the pod, with the parameter `allowPrivilegeEscalation` set to `false`. This will prevent the container from running any privileged processes and limit the impact of any potential attacks. By adding a `securityContext` to your Kubernetes pod, you can help to ensure that your containerized applications are more secure and less vulnerable to privilege escalation attacks.
TooManyMethods: ActivityExecutionContext src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Contexts/ActivityExecutionContext.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 367 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 59 methods, declared across 4 files: Contexts/ActivityExecutionContext.cs (52), Contexts/ActivityExecutionContext.Cancel.cs (3), Contexts/ActivityExecutionContext.Complete.cs (3), Contexts/ActivityExecutionContext.ExecutionLogEntry.cs (1). To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: WorkflowExecutionContext src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 360 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 50 methods, declared across 3 files: Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.cs (47), Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.Cancel.cs (2), Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.ExecutionLogEntry.cs (1). To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Store src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.Common/Store.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 270 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 45 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: AIOrchestrator src/modules/Elsa.AI.Host/Services/AIOrchestrator.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 473 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 34 methods. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: Flowchart src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Activities/Flowchart.Counters.cs:0— TooManyMethods — 345 significant lines (blank, comment-only and punctuation-only lines excluded), 32 methods, declared across 3 files: Activities/Flowchart.Counters.cs (19), Activities/Flowchart.cs (10), Activities/Flowchart.Tokens.cs (3). To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via IWorkflowHost.RunWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via IWorkflowInvoker.InvokeAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowHost.RunWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowResult (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — RunWorkflowResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via WorkflowInvoker.InvokeAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowExecutionResult (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — WorkflowExecutionResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowRuntime.StartWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowExecutionResult (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — WorkflowExecutionResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowRuntime.TryStartWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowExecutionResult (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — WorkflowExecutionResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowRuntime.ResumeWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowExecutionResult (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — WorkflowExecutionResult (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowRuntime.ExecuteWorkflowAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions's public surface via IPersistenceSchemaCatalog.Schemas — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions's public surface via IPersistenceSchemaCatalog.DescribeSchema — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions's public surface via DefaultPersistenceSchemaCatalog.Schemas — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Extensions's public surface via DefaultPersistenceSchemaCatalog.DescribeSchema — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type VariableDefinition (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — VariableDefinition (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via VariableDefinitionMapper.Map — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type VariableDefinition (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — VariableDefinition (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowDefinitionModel..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type VariableDefinition (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — VariableDefinition (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowDefinitionModel.Variables — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstantiationStrategyContext (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowInstantiationStrategyContext (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via CorrelatedSingletonStrategy.GetAllowActivationAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstantiationStrategyContext (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowInstantiationStrategyContext (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via CorrelationStrategy.GetAllowActivationAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstantiationStrategyContext (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowInstantiationStrategyContext (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via SingletonStrategy.GetAllowActivationAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogFilter (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogFilter (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via RelationalStructuredLogSqlBuilder.BuildQuery — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogFilter (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogFilter (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via StructuredLogWriteBuffer.QueryAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StructuredLogFilter (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — StructuredLogFilter (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via RelationalStructuredLogStore.QueryAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Sqlite) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Sqlite's public surface via SqliteDocumentStore..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Sqlite) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Sqlite's public surface via SqliteSchemaVersionRunner.MigrateAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Sqlite) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Sqlite's public surface via SqlitePhysicalizationPlanner.Plan — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type DocumentCollection (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — DocumentCollection (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbCollectionPlan..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type DocumentCollection (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — DocumentCollection (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbCollectionPlan.Collection — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type DocumentCollection (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — DocumentCollection (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbCollectionPlan.Deconstruct — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbDatabasePlanner.Plan — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbDocumentStore..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type PersistenceSchema (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — PersistenceSchema (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbPhysicalizationPlanner.Plan — couples the contexts.
Change coupling: ElsaDistributedLockHealthCheck.cs ↔ ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaDistributedLockHealthCheck.cs— `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaDistributedLockHealthCheck.cs` and `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: EvictWorkflowDefinitionServiceCache.cs ↔ WorkflowDefinitionPublisher.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Handlers/Notifications/EvictWorkflowDefinitionServiceCache.cs— `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Handlers/Notifications/EvictWorkflowDefinitionServiceCache.cs` and `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Services/WorkflowDefinitionPublisher.cs` change together 60% of the time (6 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in different directories, but in this ecosystem the namespace is declared in the FILE, not by the folder — so the two may well share one namespace and reference each other with no import for this pass to see. Read the pair before acting: if one derives from or overrides the other, the dependency is explicit in the type declaration and the co-change is definitional; if one registers itself into the other through a hook or an initialiser, the missing dependency is DELIBERATE and the thing to add is a comment saying so; if they simply belong together, co-locate them; if none of these holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Change coupling: EvictWorkflowDefinitionServiceCache.cs ↔ RefreshActivityRegistry.cs src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Handlers/Notifications/EvictWorkflowDefinitionServiceCache.cs— `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Handlers/Notifications/EvictWorkflowDefinitionServiceCache.cs` and `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Handlers/Notifications/RefreshActivityRegistry.cs` change together 50% of the time (5 of the 10 commits that touched whichever of the two files changed less often, counting a file under its earlier names as well). They sit in the same directory, and in this ecosystem sibling files there normally share one namespace/package — so a direct reference between them needs no import and this pass cannot see whether one exists. Read the pair before acting: if one file only DECLARES what the other consumes (a constants/types file beside its user), the co-change is definitional and the question is whether the split earns its keep; if they duplicate structure, extract the common part into a shared function or type they both call; if neither holds, the coupling is hidden and worth breaking.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Services/WorkflowDefinitionExporter.cs:112— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Services/WorkflowDefinitionExporter.cs:112-120 | src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Services/WorkflowDefinitionExporter.cs:126-134 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Services/WorkflowDefinitionExporter.cs:112` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Common/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:72— src/modules/Elsa.Common/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:72-80 | src/clients/Elsa.Api.Client/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:79-87 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/modules/Elsa.Common/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:72` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Ingestion/HttpProtobuf/OtlpHttpProtobufParser.cs:327— src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Ingestion/HttpProtobuf/OtlpHttpProtobufParser.cs:327-335 | src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Ingestion/HttpProtobuf/OtlpHttpProtobufParser.cs:364-372 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Ingestion/HttpProtobuf/OtlpHttpProtobufParser.cs:327` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/Extensions/WebApplicationExtensions.cs:158— src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/Extensions/WebApplicationExtensions.cs:158-164 | src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/FastEndpointConfigurators/ElsaFastEndpointsConfigurator.cs:32-38 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/Extensions/WebApplicationExtensions.cs:158` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/Extensions/WebApplicationExtensions.cs:168— src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/Extensions/WebApplicationExtensions.cs:168-174 | src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/FastEndpointConfigurators/ElsaFastEndpointsConfigurator.cs:42-48 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/common/Elsa.Api.Common/Extensions/WebApplicationExtensions.cs:168` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Http/Activities/DownloadHttpFile.cs:272— src/modules/Elsa.Http/Activities/DownloadHttpFile.cs:272-278 | src/modules/Elsa.Http/Activities/SendHttpRequestBase.cs:302-308 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once.
Off the main sequence: Elsa.Api.Client(net8.0) — Elsa.Api.Client(net8.0): abstractness 0.13, instability 0.00, distance 0.87 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 1 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Elsa.Persistence.VNext(net8.0) — Elsa.Persistence.VNext(net8.0): abstractness 0.17, instability 0.00, distance 0.83 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 8 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: Elsa.Expressions(net8.0) — Elsa.Expressions(net8.0): abstractness 0.14, instability 0.11, distance 0.75 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 16 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
VersionOptions.ToString (cognitive 21) src/modules/Elsa.Common/Models/VersionOptions.cs:117— VersionOptions.ToString has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
VersionOptions.ToString (cognitive 21) src/clients/Elsa.Api.Client/Shared/Models/VersionOptions.cs:117— VersionOptions.ToString has cognitive complexity 21 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TypeExtensions.FindIEnumerable (cognitive 17) src/modules/Elsa.Expressions/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:35— TypeExtensions.FindIEnumerable has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
TypeExtensions.FindIEnumerable (cognitive 17) src/clients/Elsa.Api.Client/Extensions/TypeExtensions.cs:44— TypeExtensions.FindIEnumerable has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Cross-context type VariableUpdateValue (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — VariableUpdateValue (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via IWorkflowInstanceVariableManager.SetVariablesAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type VariableUpdateValue (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Management) — VariableUpdateValue (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Management's public surface via WorkflowInstanceVariableManager.SetVariablesAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowStateCommitted (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → common) — WorkflowStateCommitted (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in common's public surface via DispatchWorkflowExtensions.DispatchWorkflowAndRunToCompletion — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowStateCommitted (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → common) — WorkflowStateCommitted (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowEventHandlers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowTriggersIndexed (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Http) — WorkflowTriggersIndexed (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Http's public surface via InvalidateHttpWorkflowsCache.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowTriggersIndexed (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Http) — WorkflowTriggersIndexed (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Http's public surface via UpdateRouteTable.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type MaterializedWorkflow (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.WorkflowProviders.BlobStorage) — MaterializedWorkflow (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.WorkflowProviders.BlobStorage's public surface via IBlobWorkflowFormatHandler.TryParseAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type MaterializedWorkflow (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.WorkflowProviders.BlobStorage) — MaterializedWorkflow (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.WorkflowProviders.BlobStorage's public surface via JsonBlobWorkflowFormatHandler.TryParseAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowInstanceResponse (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — RunWorkflowInstanceResponse (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowClient.RunInstanceAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RunWorkflowInstanceResponse (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — RunWorkflowInstanceResponse (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowClient.CreateAndRunInstanceAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type AlterationJobCompleted (Elsa.Alterations.Core → Elsa.Alterations) — AlterationJobCompleted (context Elsa.Alterations.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Alterations's public surface via AlterationJobCompletedHandler.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type AlterationJobCompleted (Elsa.Alterations.Core → Elsa.Alterations) — AlterationJobCompleted (context Elsa.Alterations.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Alterations's public surface via ResumeWorkflowInstance.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RecentStructuredLogsResult (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — RecentStructuredLogsResult (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via StructuredLogWriteBuffer.QueryAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RecentStructuredLogsResult (Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs → Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational) — RecentStructuredLogsResult (context Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs) is exposed in Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs.Persistence.Relational's public surface via RelationalStructuredLogStore.QueryAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StoredDocument (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational) — StoredDocument (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational's public surface via RelationalDocumentStore.SaveAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StoredDocument (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational) — StoredDocument (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational's public surface via RelationalDocumentStore.LoadAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type DocumentQuery (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational) — DocumentQuery (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational's public surface via RelationalDocumentStore.QueryAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type DocumentQuery (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational) — DocumentQuery (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.Relational's public surface via RelationalDocumentStoreDialect.FindMatchingIndex — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StoredDocument (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — StoredDocument (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbDocumentStore.SaveAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type StoredDocument (Elsa.Persistence.VNext → Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb) — StoredDocument (context Elsa.Persistence.VNext) is exposed in Elsa.Persistence.VNext.MongoDb's public surface via MongoDbDocumentStore.LoadAsync — couples the contexts.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Identity/Endpoints/Roles/Delete/Endpoint.cs:22— src/modules/Elsa.Identity/Endpoints/Roles/Delete/Endpoint.cs:22-40 | src/modules/Elsa.Identity/Endpoints/Users/Delete/Endpoint.cs:22-36 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/modules/Elsa.Identity/Endpoints/Roles/Delete/Endpoint.cs:22` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Scheduling/ScheduledTasks/ScheduledCronTask.cs:133— src/modules/Elsa.Scheduling/ScheduledTasks/ScheduledCronTask.cs:133-148 | src/modules/Elsa.Scheduling/ScheduledTasks/ScheduledRecurringTask.cs:113-127 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Features/WorkflowRuntimeFeature.cs:460— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Features/WorkflowRuntimeFeature.cs:460-472 | src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/ShellFeatures/WorkflowRuntimeFeature.cs:378-390 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Features/WorkflowRuntimeFeature.cs:460` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Handlers/ResumeDispatchWorkflowActivity.cs:19— src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Handlers/ResumeDispatchWorkflowActivity.cs:19-31 | src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Handlers/ResumeExecuteWorkflowActivity.cs:19-31 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory: extract the block into a single shared function in that directory and call it from each site, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Handlers/ResumeDispatchWorkflowActivity.cs:19` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Low cohesion: WorkflowExecutionContext (LCOM4 5) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Contexts/WorkflowExecutionContext.cs:31— WorkflowExecutionContext's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
Low cohesion: ObsoleteWorkflowRuntime (LCOM4 5) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Services/ObsoleteWorkflowRuntime.cs:24— ObsoleteWorkflowRuntime's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
ObjectConverter.ConvertTo (cyclomatic 73) src/modules/Elsa.Expressions/Helpers/ObjectConverter.cs:87— ObjectConverter.ConvertTo has cyclomatic complexity 73 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
WorkflowInstanceFilter.Apply (cyclomatic 44) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Filters/WorkflowInstanceFilter.cs:139— WorkflowInstanceFilter.Apply has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 43 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
AIOrchestrator.ExecuteChatAsync (cyclomatic 44) src/modules/Elsa.AI.Host/Services/AIOrchestrator.cs:25— AIOrchestrator.ExecuteChatAsync has cyclomatic complexity 44 (threshold 15). Of this number, 43 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ObjectConverter.ConvertTo (cyclomatic 42) src/clients/Elsa.Api.Client/Extensions/ObjectConverter.cs:37— ObjectConverter.ConvertTo has cyclomatic complexity 42 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
Flowchart.OnChildCompletedTokenBasedLogicAsync (cyclomatic 32) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Activities/Flowchart.Tokens.cs:13— Flowchart.OnChildCompletedTokenBasedLogicAsync has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). Of this number, 19 points are the body's own statements and 13 belong to 6 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
ActivityExecutionRecordFilter.Apply (cyclomatic 32) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Filters/ActivityExecutionRecordFilter.cs:139— ActivityExecutionRecordFilter.Apply has cyclomatic complexity 32 (threshold 15). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
PolymorphicObjectConverter.Read (cyclomatic 29) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs:44— PolymorphicObjectConverter.Read has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
PolymorphicObjectConverter.Write (cyclomatic 29) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs:176— PolymorphicObjectConverter.Write has cyclomatic complexity 29 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
FlowchartJsonConverter.DeserializeConnections (cyclomatic 23) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs:164— FlowchartJsonConverter.DeserializeConnections has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 21 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
TenantTaskLifecycleCoordinator.StopTenantCoreAsync (cyclomatic 20) src/modules/Elsa.Common/Multitenancy/Implementations/TenantTaskLifecycleCoordinator.cs:201— TenantTaskLifecycleCoordinator.StopTenantCoreAsync has cyclomatic complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the branches: extract each independent case into its own named function, or replace a long branch ladder over a single value with a data-driven lookup or dispatch table.
EFCoreWorkflowDefinitionStore.Filter (cyclomatic 18) src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore/Modules/Management/WorkflowDefinitionStore.cs:202— EFCoreWorkflowDefinitionStore.Filter has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 4 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
StructuredLogFilterEvaluator.Matches (cyclomatic 18) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs/Services/StructuredLogFilterEvaluator.cs:7— StructuredLogFilterEvaluator.Matches has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesTrace (cyclomatic 18) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs:186— OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesTrace has cyclomatic complexity 18 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
FlowchartJsonConverter.Read (cyclomatic 17) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs:24— FlowchartJsonConverter.Read has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ElsaScriptParser.ElsaScriptParser.ctor (cyclomatic 17) src/modules/Elsa.Dsl.ElsaScript/Parser/ElsaScriptParser.cs:15— ElsaScriptParser.ElsaScriptParser.ctor has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 1 of the 17 points is its own statement and the rest belongs to 7 function literals inside it that branch (lines 374, 463, 156, …). The decisions are inside those literals, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literals' work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have each literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesMetricPoint (cyclomatic 17) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs:244— OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesMetricPoint has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
ExpandoObjectConverter.Read (cyclomatic 16) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/ExpandoObjectConverter.cs:19— ExpandoObjectConverter.Read has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.
WorkflowDefinitionFilter.Apply (cyclomatic 16) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Filters/WorkflowDefinitionFilter.cs:90— WorkflowDefinitionFilter.Apply has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 13 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.CheckHealthAsync (cyclomatic 16) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/HealthChecks/ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.cs:24— ElsaWorkflowPersistenceHealthCheck.CheckHealthAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 15 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
DefaultWorkflowDefinitionStorePopulator.AddOrUpdateCoreAsync (cyclomatic 16) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Services/DefaultWorkflowDefinitionStorePopulator.cs:142— DefaultWorkflowDefinitionStorePopulator.AddOrUpdateCoreAsync has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, separate the cases: extract each independent branch into its own named function, and where the body has guards that only reject input, fold those into early returns at the top.
OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesLog (cyclomatic 16) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs:215— OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesLog has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: these branches sit side by side rather than nested inside one another, so extracting each one on its own would leave a function per branch. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
No assertions: ValidateInstance_MatchesRequiredFieldsIgnoringCase test/unit/Elsa.Persistence.VNext.UnitTests/RuntimeEntityDefinitionValidatorTests.cs:110— Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
BareSuppressMessage test/unit/Elsa.Activities.UnitTests/Http/ZipManagerTests.cs:141— UnconditionalSuppressMessage — the suppression records no reason: either it carries no justification argument at all, or one that states nothing a reader can weigh ("OK", "By design"). A suppression is a decision somebody made, and without the reason the next reader cannot tell a considered exception from an unexamined one, so it is never revisited. Write what makes this site legitimately different — the invariant that holds, the framework contract that forces the shape — or remove the suppression and fix what it hides.
ObjectConverter.ConvertTo (cognitive 103) src/modules/Elsa.Expressions/Helpers/ObjectConverter.cs:87— ObjectConverter.ConvertTo has cognitive complexity 103 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
AIOrchestrator.ExecuteChatAsync (cognitive 81) src/modules/Elsa.AI.Host/Services/AIOrchestrator.cs:25— AIOrchestrator.ExecuteChatAsync has cognitive complexity 81 (threshold 15). Of this number, 80 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ObjectConverter.ConvertTo (cognitive 59) src/clients/Elsa.Api.Client/Extensions/ObjectConverter.cs:37— ObjectConverter.ConvertTo has cognitive complexity 59 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
Flowchart.OnChildCompletedTokenBasedLogicAsync (cognitive 43) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Activities/Flowchart.Tokens.cs:13— Flowchart.OnChildCompletedTokenBasedLogicAsync has cognitive complexity 43 (threshold 15). Of this number, 37 points are the body's own statements and 6 belong to 6 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
JsonActivityConstructorContextHelper.StripTypeMetadata (cognitive 35) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Models/ActivityConstructorContext.cs:77— JsonActivityConstructorContextHelper.StripTypeMetadata has cognitive complexity 35 (threshold 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
PolymorphicObjectConverter.Read (cognitive 34) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs:44— PolymorphicObjectConverter.Read has cognitive complexity 34 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
ActivityExecutionRecordFilter.Apply (cognitive 32) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Filters/ActivityExecutionRecordFilter.cs:139— ActivityExecutionRecordFilter.Apply has cognitive complexity 32 (threshold 15). Of this number, 29 points are the body's own statements and 3 belong to 3 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
WorkflowInstanceFilter.Apply (cognitive 31) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Filters/WorkflowInstanceFilter.cs:139— WorkflowInstanceFilter.Apply has cognitive complexity 31 (threshold 15). Of this number, 30 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition.
ActivityWriter.WriteActivity (cognitive 30) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Helpers/ActivityWriter.cs:22— ActivityWriter.WriteActivity has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
TenantTaskLifecycleCoordinator.StopTenantCoreAsync (cognitive 30) src/modules/Elsa.Common/Multitenancy/Implementations/TenantTaskLifecycleCoordinator.cs:201— TenantTaskLifecycleCoordinator.StopTenantCoreAsync has cognitive complexity 30 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DistributedRuntimeLockProviderValidator.GetInnerProviders (cognitive 28) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed/Services/DistributedRuntimeLockProviderValidator.cs:76— DistributedRuntimeLockProviderValidator.GetInnerProviders has cognitive complexity 28 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
ScheduledCronTask.SetupTimer (cognitive 25) src/modules/Elsa.Scheduling/ScheduledTasks/ScheduledCronTask.cs:99— ScheduledCronTask.SetupTimer has cognitive complexity 25 (threshold 15). Most of this is not in the body itself: 0 of the 25 points are its own statements and the rest belongs to one function literal inside it that branches (line 106). The decisions are inside the literal, which nothing outside this body can call, review or test on its own, so splitting the enclosing body is not the move available here. To reduce it, lift the literal's work into a named function or method at the enclosing scope and have the literal call it, then reduce whichever part then reads as the largest.
PolymorphicObjectConverter.ReadObject (cognitive 24) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs:391— PolymorphicObjectConverter.ReadObject has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
WorkflowRunner.RunAsync (cognitive 24) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Services/WorkflowRunner.cs:115— WorkflowRunner.RunAsync has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
FlowchartJsonConverter.DeserializeConnections (cognitive 23) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs:164— FlowchartJsonConverter.DeserializeConnections has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). Of this number, 22 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ItemSourceActivityExecutionContextExtensions.GetItemSource (cognitive 23) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Extensions/ItemSourceActivityExecutionContextExtensions.cs:19— ItemSourceActivityExecutionContextExtensions.GetItemSource has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, break up the iteration: give each loop body a named function, and split a multi-phase loop into one function per phase so no single body carries the whole pipeline.
VariablePersistenceManager.LoadVariablesAsync (cognitive 23) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Services/VariablePersistenceManager.cs:13— VariablePersistenceManager.LoadVariablesAsync has cognitive complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BackgroundActivityInvokerMiddleware.CompleteBackgroundActivityScheduledActivitiesAsync (cognitive 22) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Middleware/Activities/BackgroundActivityInvokerMiddleware.cs:224— BackgroundActivityInvokerMiddleware.CompleteBackgroundActivityScheduledActivitiesAsync has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
DefaultWorkflowDefinitionStorePopulator.AddOrUpdateCoreAsync (cognitive 22) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Services/DefaultWorkflowDefinitionStorePopulator.cs:142— DefaultWorkflowDefinitionStorePopulator.AddOrUpdateCoreAsync has cognitive complexity 22 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PolymorphicObjectConverter.ReadType (cognitive 20) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs:299— PolymorphicObjectConverter.ReadType has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
WorkflowReferenceUpdater.UpdateWorkflowReferencesAsync (cognitive 20) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Management/Services/WorkflowReferenceUpdater.cs:25— WorkflowReferenceUpdater.UpdateWorkflowReferencesAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
HttpEndpoint.HandleRequestAsync (cognitive 20) src/modules/Elsa.Http/Activities/HttpEndpoint.cs:204— HttpEndpoint.HandleRequestAsync has cognitive complexity 20 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
PolymorphicObjectConverter.Write (cognitive 19) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/PolymorphicObjectConverter.cs:176— PolymorphicObjectConverter.Write has cognitive complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
FlowGraph.GetForwardConnections (cognitive 18) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Models/FlowGraph.cs:110— FlowGraph.GetForwardConnections has cognitive complexity 18 (threshold 15). Of this number, 17 points are the body's own statements and 1 belongs to one function literal inside it that branches. To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
ExpandoObjectConverter.Read (cognitive 17) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/ExpandoObjectConverter.cs:19— ExpandoObjectConverter.Read has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.
InputJsonConverter.Read (cognitive 17) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Serialization/Converters/InputJsonConverter.cs:28— InputJsonConverter.Read has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
StructuredLogFilterEvaluator.Matches (cognitive 17) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.StructuredLogs/Services/StructuredLogFilterEvaluator.cs:7— StructuredLogFilterEvaluator.Matches has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
FlowchartJsonConverter.Read (cognitive 16) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Core/Activities/Flowchart/Serialization/FlowchartJsonConverter.cs:24— FlowchartJsonConverter.Read has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
BookmarkFilter.GetHashableString (cognitive 16) src/modules/Elsa.Workflows.Runtime/Filters/BookmarkFilter.cs:95— BookmarkFilter.GetHashableString has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, flatten the nesting: invert conditions into early returns or guard clauses so the happy path stays at one level, and lift the deepest nested block into its own named function.
BulkUpsertExtensions.GenerateSqlServerUpsert (cognitive 16) src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.Common/Extensions/BulkUpsertExtensions.cs:84— BulkUpsertExtensions.GenerateSqlServerUpsert has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
BulkUpsertExtensions.GeneratePostgresUpsert (cognitive 16) src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore.Common/Extensions/BulkUpsertExtensions.cs:209— BulkUpsertExtensions.GeneratePostgresUpsert has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, split the body into named stages: move each independent step or branch into its own named function so the body reads as a short sequence of named calls rather than one long body.
EFCoreWorkflowDefinitionStore.Filter (cognitive 16) src/modules/Elsa.Persistence.EFCore/Modules/Management/WorkflowDefinitionStore.cs:202— EFCoreWorkflowDefinitionStore.Filter has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Of this number, 14 points are the body's own statements and 2 belong to 2 function literals inside it that branch. To reduce it, split the body: this score is breadth rather than depth — many checks laid out side by side rather than nested inside one another, so inverting conditions into early returns has nothing left to flatten. Group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function, so the body reads as a short sequence of named stages.
OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesTrace (cognitive 16) src/modules/Elsa.Diagnostics.OpenTelemetry/Providers/InMemory/InMemoryOpenTelemetryLiveFeed.cs:186— OpenTelemetrySubscriber.MatchesTrace has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). To reduce it, name the conditions: bind each compound test to a well-named local or a small predicate function, so the body reads as a sequence of named decisions rather than a chain of operators.
D20 · ADR Quality· Context and decision are both boilerplate filler; the body gives no rationale for why ADRs were chosen (vs. alternatives like a wiki or commit log) and no consequences beyond citing Nygard's article · ×1
Context and decision are both boilerplate filler; the body gives no rationale for why ADRs were chosen (vs. alternatives like a wiki or commit log) and no consequences beyond citing Nygard's article doc/adr/0001-record-architecture-decisions.md— Replace the Context/Decision with a real problem statement (e.g. 'Architectural decisions drift without a single source of truth') and add Consequences: who owns the ADR, how often it is reviewed, and where to find updates
D20 · ADR Quality· Consequences section begins but only one consequence (reflecting a failed state) is listed; trade-offs of the alternative considered are not mentioned · ×1
Consequences section begins but only one consequence (reflecting a failed state) is listed; trade-offs of the alternative considered are not mentioned doc/adr/0002-fault-propagation-from-child-to-parent-activities.md— Add a sentence or two on the trade-off of maintaining Faulted status for the parent when its child resumes successfully
D20 · ADR Quality· The decision is an internal design principle with no consequences/trade-offs; it is a one-line rule rather than a documented rationale and its cost · ×1
The decision is an internal design principle with no consequences/trade-offs; it is a one-line rule rather than a documented rationale and its cost doc/adr/0011-output-conversion-at-binding-is-synchronous.md— Add a Consequences section covering the trade-offs of synchronously configured converters (e.g. slower assignment paths for non-nullable destinations, loss of diagnostics visibility)
D20 · ADR Quality· The decision is stated but consequences/trade-offs are not detailed (e.g. how clients consume the catalog vs hard-coding, loss of type-coercion for new converters) · ×1
The decision is stated but consequences/trade-offs are not detailed (e.g. how clients consume the catalog vs hard-coding, loss of type-coercion for new converters) doc/adr/0013-output-converter-discovery-is-server-owned.md— Add a Consequences section covering trade-offs such as client dependency on the registry and the cost of maintaining a reference converter in tests/samples
D20 · ADR Quality· The body is a list of linked ADRs and contains no single decision document · ×1
The body is a list of linked ADRs and contains no single decision document doc/adr/toc.md
Cross-context type ActivityExecutionLogUpdated (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Api) — ActivityExecutionLogUpdated (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Api's public surface via BroadcastWorkflowProgress.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ActivityExecutionRecordDeleted (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Api) — ActivityExecutionRecordDeleted (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Api's public surface via BroadcastWorkflowProgress.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ActivityExecutionRecordUpdated (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Api) — ActivityExecutionRecordUpdated (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Api's public surface via BroadcastWorkflowProgress.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowExecutionLogUpdated (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Api) — WorkflowExecutionLogUpdated (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Api's public surface via BroadcastWorkflowProgress.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstanceSaved (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Api) — WorkflowInstanceSaved (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Api's public surface via BroadcastWorkflowProgress.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ObjectLiteral (Elsa.Expressions → Elsa.Workflows.Core) — ObjectLiteral (context Elsa.Expressions) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Core's public surface via Input..ctor — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowValidationError (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowValidationError (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via ITriggerPayloadValidator.ValidateAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ExceptionState (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — ExceptionState (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via ActivityExecutionRecord.Exception — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ActivityCompleted (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — ActivityCompleted (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via CaptureActivityExecutionState.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstancesDeleting (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowInstancesDeleting (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via DeleteBookmarks.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowDefinitionDeleting (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowDefinitionDeleting (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via DeleteTriggers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowDefinitionVersionDeleting (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowDefinitionVersionDeleting (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via DeleteTriggers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowDefinitionsDeleting (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowDefinitionsDeleting (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via DeleteTriggers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowDefinitionVersionsDeleting (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowDefinitionVersionsDeleting (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via DeleteTriggers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstanceSaved (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowInstanceSaved (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via SignalBookmarkQueueWorker.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowDefinitionValidating (Elsa.Workflows.Management → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — WorkflowDefinitionValidating (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via ValidateWorkflowRequestHandler.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type InvokingActivityCallback (Elsa.Workflows.Core → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) — InvokingActivityCallback (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime's public surface via EvaluateParentLogPersistenceModes.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowFinished (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — WorkflowFinished (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowEventHandlers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowInstanceSaved (Elsa.Workflows.Management → common) — WorkflowInstanceSaved (context Elsa.Workflows.Management) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowEventHandlers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ActivityExecuted (Elsa.Workflows.Core → common) — ActivityExecuted (context Elsa.Workflows.Core) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowEventHandlers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type ActivityExecutionLogUpdated (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → common) — ActivityExecutionLogUpdated (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in common's public surface via WorkflowEventHandlers.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type HttpEndpointRouteProviderContext (Elsa.Http → Elsa.Tenants.AspNetCore) — HttpEndpointRouteProviderContext (context Elsa.Http) is exposed in Elsa.Tenants.AspNetCore's public surface via TenantPrefixHttpEndpointRoutesProvider.GetRoutesAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowDefinitionsReloaded (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Http) — WorkflowDefinitionsReloaded (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Http's public surface via InvalidateHttpWorkflowsCache.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowBookmarksIndexed (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Http) — WorkflowBookmarksIndexed (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Http's public surface via UpdateRouteTable.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type BackgroundActivityExecutionCompleted (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Resilience) — BackgroundActivityExecutionCompleted (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Resilience's public surface via PropagateRetryAttemptedFlag.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RecordRetryAttemptsContext (Elsa.Resilience.Core → Elsa.Resilience) — RecordRetryAttemptsContext (context Elsa.Resilience.Core) is exposed in Elsa.Resilience's public surface via ActivityExecutionContextRetryAttemptRecorder.RecordAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowTriggersIndexed (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Scheduling) — WorkflowTriggersIndexed (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Scheduling's public surface via ScheduleWorkflows.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type WorkflowBookmarksIndexed (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Scheduling) — WorkflowBookmarksIndexed (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Scheduling's public surface via ScheduleWorkflows.HandleAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type RefreshWorkflowDefinitionsResponse (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed) — RefreshWorkflowDefinitionsResponse (context Elsa.Workflows.Runtime) is exposed in Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed's public surface via DistributedWorkflowDefinitionsRefresher.RefreshWorkflowDefinitionsAsync — couples the contexts.
Cross-context type IWorkflowClient (Elsa.Workflows.Runtime → Elsa.Workflows.Runtime.Distributed)
Downloadable artifacts
Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.