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.
erikshafer/CritterSupply carries serious risk (51%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Code Health (86%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Maturity (82%) is solid too.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Security (44%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Accessibility (45%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Strengthen data-at-rest protection (Data Protection); MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing (Web-Security Posture); Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler) (Keyboard semantics).
For scale: Medium (~44,680 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~1.3 person-years (~1–3 engineers). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (86%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
86% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
78%
Strong
Maturity
82%
Adequate · gated by D16
Readiness
53%
Adequate · gated by D12, D13, P3
Security
44%
Weak · gated by D30, D31, C1
Accessibility
45%
Adequate · gated by AC4
Performance
70%
Strong
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Security 44% · 46% weightAccessibility 45% · 25% weightReadiness 53% · 14% weightPerformance 70% · 8% weightArchitecture 78% · 4% weightMaturity 82% · 2% weightCode Health 86% · 1% weight
Raise Security 44 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 51 → ~55.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 9%Plumbing 29%Tests 61%Generated 1%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €62,000–€310,000
| Cost to rebuild | €62,000–€310,000 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 51% quality) |
| Size & shape | Medium · 55% boilerplate · 22% straight-line · 23% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~1.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€190,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 44% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
2
Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with appsettings.json (4).
3
Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Medium asset (~1.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 44%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: 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.
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+4.5 pts/run over 5 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityAccessibilityPerformance
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
9.8
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
9.5
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
9.8
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
9.7
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
9.4
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
9.9
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
9.9
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
7.4
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
7.9
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
9.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
X5 · Repo
Nullable reference types
9.6
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
8.5
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
9.6
D7 · .NET / C#
Architectural Integrity
10.0
D22 · .NET / C#
Internal API Consistency
9.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
9.8
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
8.0
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
6.4
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
AX9 · Repo
CQS / query purity
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
D15 · .NET / C#
Churn × Complexity Hotspots
10.0
D20 · .NET / C#
ADR Quality
9.0
D21 · .NET / C#
Naming Consistency
10.0
D24 · .NET / C#
Comment Value
9.0
D25 · .NET / C#
ADR Conformance
10.0
M1 · Repo
Documentation (README)
8.2
M2 · Repo
Architecture documentation
10.0
M3 · Repo
Folder & project structure
8.0
M4 · Repo
Documentation accuracy
10.0
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
D9 · .NET / C#
Test Distribution
10.0
D10 · .NET / C#
Test Quality
10.0
D11 · .NET / C#
Test Reliability
10.0
D14 · .NET / C#
License Compliance
10.0
P1 · Repo
CI/CD gates
10.0
P11 · Repo
BDD / executable specs
10.0
P2 · Repo
Observability
7.8
P4 · Repo
Deployment & Rollback
7.0
P5 · Repo
DR & Backup
10.0
P7 · Repo
Outbound HTTP resilience
10.0
P8 · Repo
Schema migrations
10.0
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Accessibility
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly
At a glance — Performance
The Good
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 38 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 17 | High / Critical |
| A02:2021 — Cryptographic Failures | 4 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Immediately strengthen data protection by encrypting sensitive columns and securing keys, as partial coverage leaves critical gaps. Simultaneously, replace weak hashing algorithms with secure alternatives and ensure all custom controls are fully keyboard-operable. Finally, enforce accessibility standards through automated testing and CI gates, while correcting page structure and semantic markup to ensure a robust, inclusive user experience.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +3.3 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with appsettings.json (4). | +3.3 pts | Low | Secret Scanning |
| Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +2.9 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| 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. | +5.7 pts | Medium | Data Protection |
| Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage. | +5.6 pts | Medium | Web-Security Posture |
| Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href. | +5.4 pts | Medium | Keyboard semantics |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +5.4 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +5.2 pts | Medium | Page structure |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/Orders/Orders/Placement/Order.cs | 5.5 | Mixed | God Classes: TooManyMethods: Order |
| src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/RefundCompletedHandler.cs | 6.0 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ShipmentDeliveredHandler.cs | 6.0 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Customer Identity/CustomerIdentity.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Listings/Listings.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Orders/Orders.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Payments/Payments.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Pricing/Pricing.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Product Catalog/ProductCatalog.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Returns/Returns.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Shopping/Shopping.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Near-clean | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 64 of 70 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 6 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 70 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D8D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D20D21D22D24D25D26D27D28D29D30D31D35AC2AC3AC4AC5AC6AC7AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8AX9C1C2C4GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P11P2P3P4P5P7P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5
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, 401 of 495 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- 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 suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- 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 (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- 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.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- 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.
- 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.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
- 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.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- 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.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was Dashboard.razor › ShowChangeRequestDecisionToast at 16.
Dashboard.razor › ShowChangeRequestDecisionToast (cyclomatic 16)src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:372
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
2 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was ProductEdit.razor › SaveChangesAsync at 20.
ProductEdit.razor › SaveChangesAsync (cognitive 20)src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Products/ProductEdit.razor:253
Dashboard.razor › ShowChangeRequestDecisionToast (cognitive 18)src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:372
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
2 god class(es) detected.
TooManyMethods: Shipment src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment/Shipments/Shipment.cs:0
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
26 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Users/UserList.razor:131
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:116
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/InventoryStreamId.cs:44
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:311
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/AddAddress.cs:33
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
77 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: CritterSupply.ServiceDefaults
What to do
- Resolve the 15 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 31 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: Order (LCOM4 4)src/Orders/Orders/Placement/Order.cs:12
Do you agree with this assessment?
D7 · Architectural Integrity
Of 39 mechanizable ADRs, 36 are prevented by analyzers, 3 by tests, 0 exist only in prose. Coverage: 100 %. Cycles found: 0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
Line coverage 2.3% — 192 file(s) below 50% · 40 method(s) over the CRAP-30 risk line.
Low coverage: ChangeVendorUserRoleHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserManagement/ChangeVendorUserRoleHandler.cs
CRAP 132: CarrierWebhookHandler.Handle src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment/Shipments/CarrierHandlers.cs:283
CRAP 110: CustomerAddress.Update src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/CustomerAddress.cs:95
CRAP 56: RecallCascadeHandler.Handle src/Listings/Listings/Listing/RecallCascadeHandler.cs:16
CRAP 156: OrderDecider.HandleReservationCommittedsrc/Orders/Orders/Placement/OrderDecider.cs:425
What to do
- Resolve the 192 Low coverage finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with AddItemToCart.cs (2), BackorderCreatedHandler.cs (2), ChangeItemQuantity.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (192 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 CRAP 132 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with CarrierHandlers.cs, ListingApprovedHandler.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 CRAP 110 finding(s) in Code Coverage — start with CustomerAddress.cs, SLAMonitoring.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
1807 test methods: 790 unit, 1017 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
6 skipped (6 with a documented reason), 0 zero-assertion, 6 mock references across 1807 tests.
Skipped (documented): ShipmentDelivered_Creates_ReturnEligibilityWindow_In_Returns_BC tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/FulfillmentToReturnsPipelineTests.cs:16
Mock framework: NSubstitute
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 4 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: measured (0 flaky); e2e: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
42 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 1 deprecated packages.
Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
Deprecated: xunit
Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.AppHost
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
4 secret(s) detected.
Leaked secret: signing-key src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/appsettings.json:20
What to do
- Resolve the 4 Leaked secret finding(s) in Secret Scanning — start with appsettings.json (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Enforce Secret Scanning in CI to reach Prevented (currently Verified). — Hardens enforcement from Verified toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 52 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
Top hotspots: src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Components/Pages/OrderConfirmation.razor (6×16=96); src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor (1×16=16); src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Products/ProductEdit.razor (1×15=15)
Hotspot: src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Components/Pages/OrderConfirmation.razor src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Components/Pages/OrderConfirmation.razor
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
136 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces/Adapters/EbayMarketplaceAdapter.cs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
56 deducted debt markers + 2 dead symbols across 43979 LoC (0.3/KLoC) → score 9.4.
NoWarnInCsproj tests/Customer Identity/CustomerIdentity.Api.IntegrationTests/CustomerIdentity.Api.IntegrationTests.csproj:6
TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/BackorderCreatedHandler.cs:17
ObsoleteWithCallers src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/ProductInventory.cs:43
CommentedOutCode src/Promotions/Promotions.Api/Queries/CalculateDiscount.cs:96
Dead code: ExpectedTotals tests/Customer Experience/Storefront.E2ETests/WellKnownTestData.cs:103
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
77 projects, 1299 .cs files, 116484 hand-written lines of code (43979 production / 72505 test), plus 1325 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 203 inter-project edges (build failed).
Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored
Thin analysable surface across projects
Build did not complete in the analyzer
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
Evaluated 60 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 9.0/10 (consistently complete and clear). 0 flagged with a specific gap.
ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0062-cross-product-exchange-payments-choreography.md
What to do
- Resolve the 59 ADR lacks an enforcement field finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 0001-checkout-migration-to-orders.md, 0002-ef-core-for-customer-identity.md, 0003-value-objects-vs-primitives-queryable-fields.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (59 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D22 · Internal API Consistency
1 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 130 exposed types.
Duplicate address types with slightly different property sets. Both represent a shipping address but have different property names (e.g., `StateProvince` vs `State`, `AddressLine1` vs `Street`), causing ambiguity about which type to use in the `Orders` vs `Common` namespaces.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
42 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
redundant commentsrc/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Program.cs:52
Do you agree with this assessment?
D25 · ADR Conformance
60 conform / 0 violate across 60 ADRs.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
1 of 77 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Split Messages.Contracts
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
98 % of calls cross a namespace and 17 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 8.0/10. — 98 % of calls cross a namespace and 17 % go through an interface, but 97 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
17 vulnerable package(s): 2 critical, 2 high, 13 medium, 0 low.
Critical CVE: Marten 8.29.2
High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
What to do
- Resolve the 13 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (13 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D31 · IaC & Container Security
38 finding(s): 0 critical, 19 high, 0 medium, 19 low.
High IaC: DS-0002 src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
What to do
- Resolve the 19 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (19). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 issue-level).
- Resolve the 19 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (19). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (19 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC2 · Forms & labels
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC3 · Page structure
- A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. — App.razor:2
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC4 · Keyboard semantics
- An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. — index.html:21
- A click handler on a plain element isn't keyboard-operable. Use a <button>, or add role + tabindex="0" + a key handler. — NavMenu.razor:9
What to do
- Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC5 · ARIA correctness
- "@(_statusFilter == null ?" is not a valid value for aria-pressed — allowed: true, false, mixed, undefined. — ChangeRequests.razor:34
- "@(_statusFilter == status ?" is not a valid value for aria-pressed — allowed: true, false, mixed, undefined. — ChangeRequests.razor:42
What to do
- Use valid, non-abstract roles, supply the ARIA state each role requires, and never put aria-hidden on a focusable element.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
- A CSS rule's foreground/background colour pair falls below the 4.5:1 WCAG AA minimum for normal text. Darken or lighten one of them. (×3) — app.css:0, NavMenu.razor.css:0, ReconnectModal.razor.css:0
What to do
- Keep a visible focus style (don't remove the outline without a replacement), guard animation with prefers-reduced-motion, and raise low-contrast colour pairs to at least 4.5:1.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
- `TokenRefreshService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_timer; e.g. `_timer` at line 32). — TokenRefreshService.cs:12
- `BackofficeHubService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_connection; e.g. `_connection` at line 118). — BackofficeHubService.cs:16
- `StubEmailProvider` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_failureSimulation; e.g. `_failureSimulation` at line 39). — StubEmailProvider.cs:7
- `TokenRefreshService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_timer; e.g. `_timer` at line 42). — TokenRefreshService.cs:17
- `VendorHubService` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_connection; e.g. `_connection` at line 123). — VendorHubService.cs:16
What to do
- Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX9 · CQS / query purity
Do you agree with this assessment?
C1 · Data Protection
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
C2 · Access Controls
Do you agree with this assessment?
C4 · Data Retention
- A retention mechanism is present, but the data-lifecycle is not yet complete — missing: a TTL / index expiry (TimeToLive / ExpireAfter / TtlIndex), a scheduled purge / cleanup job (PurgeOlderThan / CleanupJob).
What to do
- Complete the data-lifecycle story: a TTL/index expiry, a scheduled purge/cleanup job, and a documented retention period covering the personal data.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
- A placeholder string ("customer@example.com") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. (×6) — OrderPlacedHandler.cs:18, RefundCompletedHandler.cs:22, ReturnApprovedHandler.cs:18, …
- A placeholder string ("We're looking into your shipment — a rep…") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — ShipmentLostInTransitHandler.cs:23
- A placeholder string ("Must be LostInTransit or LostReplacement…") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — FileCarrierClaim.cs:37
- A placeholder string ("Must be Delivered or LostReplacementShip…") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — RaiseRateDispute.cs:36
- A placeholder string ("Replacement item currently unavailable. …") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — ReplacementReservationOutcomeHandler.cs:39
- A placeholder string ("ReplacementOutOfStock") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — ReplacementReservationOutcomeHandler.cs:46
- A placeholder string ("This return is not an exchange. Only exc…") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — ShipReplacementItem.cs:44
- A placeholder string ("/api/returns/{returnId}/ship-replacement") is still in shipped code — typical of generated boilerplate that was never filled in. — ShipReplacementItem.cs:58
What to do
- Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `Handle` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×7) — Login.cs:71, Logout.cs:41, RefreshToken.cs:52, …
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×4) — Login.cs:45, CalculateDiscount.cs:96, CalculateDiscount.cs:99, …
- A test is skipped ("Ignored") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×12) — checkout-flow.feature.cs:186, checkout-flow.feature.cs:322, checkout-flow.feature.cs:365, …
- A test is skipped ("Blocked by Wolverine saga persistence issue — saga created via InvokeAsync() is not found by subsequent handlers in multi-host tests. See docs/wolverine-saga-persistence-issue.md") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×4) — FulfillmentToReturnsPipelineTests.cs:16, FulfillmentToReturnsPipelineTests.cs:59, ReturnsToOrdersPipelineTests.cs:17, …
- A test is skipped ("Blocked by Wolverine saga persistence issue — cross-BC fixture depends on Order saga creation via InvokeAsync() which fails. See docs/wolverine-saga-persistence-issue.md") — coverage that looks present but never runs in any gate. If it's an opt-in suite, document how it runs; otherwise re-enable or delete it. (×2) — ReturnsToInventoryPipelineTests.cs:18, ReturnsToInventoryPipelineTests.cs:76
What to do
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 68 of 77 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.8 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Only 7/77 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
- Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P11 · BDD / executable specs
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- Only 11/41 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- The .NET analyzers are running but not blocking — tighten them (set <AnalysisMode>All</AnalysisMode>, or treat analyzer warnings as errors on CI) so a security/quality regression fails the build rather than scrolling past as a warning.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P5 · DR & Backup
Do you agree with this assessment?
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF1 · Benchmark discipline
- No BenchmarkDotNet suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.
What to do
- Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF2 · Allocation hygiene
What to do
- Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 12 use(s) across 46,453 production line(s) (~0.3/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- MD5/SHA1 is broken for security purposes (collision-vulnerable). Use SHA-256+ for content integrity; for password storage, use a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt). — SplitOrderIntoShipments.cs:107
- `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. — Program.cs:139
- 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
- Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
- Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
- 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
- `async void` can't be awaited and its exceptions crash the process instead of propagating. Return `Task` unless this is a top-level event handler. — TokenRefreshService.cs:36
What to do
- async void method: CheckTokenExpiry
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 359/427 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×25) — BackofficeIdentitySeedData.cs:13, BackofficeIdentityClient.cs:19, BackofficeIdentityClient.cs:32, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- ~0.6 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes — 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
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC4 · Keyboard semantics | 2.1.1, 2.4.3 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 86% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 78% | Strong | Solid. |
| Maturity | 82% | Adequate — gated by D16 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 53% | Adequate — gated by D12, D13, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 44% | Weak — gated by D30, D31, C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Accessibility | 45% | Adequate — gated by AC4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Performance | 70% | Strong | Solid. |
Not included — 29 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- 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.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (29 value object(s))
- ED1 Handler temporal coupling — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
- ED2 Event/command shape — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
- ED3 Event naming — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
- ED4 Outbox / dual-write — no events and no event/broker handlers detected — event-driven integration not assessable
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): an event-store package (Marten/EventStore); 19 projection(s)
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — coverage data present but no domain-layer files were identified (no /Domain//Aggregates/ paths)
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
- X8 JS interop contract — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 35 finding(s)
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Customer Identity/CustomerIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Listings/Listings.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Orders/Orders.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Payments/Payments.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Pricing/Pricing.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Product Catalog/ProductCatalog.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Returns/Returns.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Shopping/Shopping.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Dockerfile
D17 · Explicit Debt
- NoWarnInCsproj tests/Customer Identity/CustomerIdentity.Api.IntegrationTests/CustomerIdentity.Api.IntegrationTests.csproj:6
- NoWarnInCsproj src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/VendorIdentity.csproj:8
- NoWarnInCsproj src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/VendorIdentity.Api.csproj:6
- NoWarnInCsproj src/Customer Identity/Customers/CustomerIdentity.csproj:8
- NoWarnInCsproj src/Customer Identity/CustomerIdentity.Api/CustomerIdentity.Api.csproj:6
- NoWarnInCsproj src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/BackofficeIdentity.csproj:8
D13 · Secret Scanning
- Leaked secret: signing-key src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/appsettings.json:20
- Leaked secret: signing-key src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/appsettings.json:17
- Leaked secret: signing-key src/Product Catalog/ProductCatalog.Api/appsettings.json:22
- Leaked secret: signing-key src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces.Api/appsettings.json:21
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
- Vulnerable: Marten
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: Marten 8.29.2
- Critical CVE: Marten 8.28.0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- High CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
Warning — 314 finding(s)
D8 · Code Coverage
- Low coverage: ChangeVendorUserRoleHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserManagement/ChangeVendorUserRoleHandler.cs
- Low coverage: DeactivateVendorUserHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserManagement/DeactivateVendorUserHandler.cs
- Low coverage: ReactivateVendorUserHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserManagement/ReactivateVendorUserHandler.cs
- Low coverage: InviteVendorUser.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/InviteVendorUser.cs
- Low coverage: InviteVendorUserHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/InviteVendorUserHandler.cs
- Low coverage: ResendVendorUserInvitation.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/ResendVendorUserInvitation.cs
- Low coverage: ResendVendorUserInvitationHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/ResendVendorUserInvitationHandler.cs
- Low coverage: RevokeVendorUserInvitation.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/RevokeVendorUserInvitation.cs
- Low coverage: RevokeVendorUserInvitationHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/RevokeVendorUserInvitationHandler.cs
- Low coverage: CreateVendorTenantHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/CreateVendorTenantHandler.cs
- Low coverage: CreateVendorTenantValidator.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/CreateVendorTenantValidator.cs
- Low coverage: ReinstateVendorTenantHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/ReinstateVendorTenantHandler.cs
- Low coverage: SuspendVendorTenantHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/SuspendVendorTenantHandler.cs
- Low coverage: TerminateVendorTenantHandler.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/TerminateVendorTenantHandler.cs
- Low coverage: VendorIdentityDbContext.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/Identity/VendorIdentityDbContext.cs
- Low coverage: JwtTokenService.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/JwtTokenService.cs
- Low coverage: VendorIdentitySeedData.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/VendorIdentitySeedData.cs
- Low coverage: VendorLogout.cs src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/VendorLogout.cs
- Low coverage: IntegrationMessageAssertions.cs tests/Shared/CritterSupply.TestUtilities/IntegrationMessageAssertions.cs
- Low coverage: TestAuthHandler.cs tests/Shared/CritterSupply.TestUtilities/TestAuthHandler.cs
- Low coverage: Extensions.cs src/CritterSupply.ServiceDefaults/Extensions.cs
- Low coverage: IPricingClient.cs src/Shopping/Shopping/Clients/IPricingClient.cs
- Low coverage: IPromotionsClient.cs src/Shopping/Shopping/Clients/IPromotionsClient.cs
- Low coverage: AddItemToCart.cs src/Shopping/Shopping/Cart/AddItemToCart.cs
- Low coverage: ApplyCouponToCart.cs src/Shopping/Shopping/Cart/ApplyCouponToCart.cs
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/BackorderCreatedHandler.cs:17
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/DeliveryAttemptFailedHandler.cs:17
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/OrderPlacedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/RefundCompletedHandler.cs:20
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ReturnApprovedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ReturnCompletedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ShipmentDeliveredHandler.cs:20
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ShipmentLostInTransitHandler.cs:20
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/RefundCompletedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ReturnToSenderInitiatedHandler.cs:18
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ShipmentDeliveredHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/ShipmentHandedToCarrierHandler.cs:17
- TodoComment src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Messages/SendMessageHandler.cs:29
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Clients/CatalogClient.cs:66
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Queries/GetCheckoutView.cs:69
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Queries/GetCheckoutView.cs:75
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Queries/GetProductListing.cs:45
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/BackorderCreatedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/DeliveryAttemptFailedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/ReturnToSenderInitiatedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/ShipmentDeliveredHandler.cs:15
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/ShipmentHandedToCarrierHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/ShipmentLostInTransitHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/TrackingNumberAssignedHandler.cs:16
- TodoComment src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Notifications/PaymentAuthorizedHandler.cs:16
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: CritterSupply.ServiceDefaults
- Off the main sequence: Backoffice.Web
- Off the main sequence: Messages.Contracts
- Off the main sequence: VendorPortal.Web
- Off the main sequence: Orders
- Off the main sequence: Fulfillment
- Off the main sequence: VendorPortal
- Off the main sequence: Inventory
- Off the main sequence: Pricing
- Off the main sequence: Returns
- Off the main sequence: VendorIdentity
- Off the main sequence: BackofficeIdentity
- Off the main sequence: Payments
- Off the main sequence: Shopping
- Off the main sequence: ProductCatalog
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 2.5.192
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.1
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.1
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.15.1
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.15.1
D17 · Explicit Debt
- ObsoleteWithCallers src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/ProductInventory.cs:43
- ObsoleteWithCallers src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/ProductCatalog/ProductUpdated.cs:7
- ObsoleteWithCallers tests/Backoffice/Backoffice.E2ETests/Pages/SessionExpiredPage.cs:101
- ObsoleteWithCallers tests/Backoffice/Backoffice.E2ETests/StepDefinitions/SessionExpirySteps.cs:87
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- Hotspot: src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Components/Pages/OrderConfirmation.razor src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Components/Pages/OrderConfirmation.razor
- Hotspot: src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor
- Hotspot: src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Products/ProductEdit.razor src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Products/ProductEdit.razor
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Users/UserList.razor:131
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Inventory/InventoryEdit.razor:222
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) src/Shopping/Shopping/Cart/ApplyCouponToCart.cs:62
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:116
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthStateProvider.cs:28
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/Promotions/Promotions/Coupon/RedeemCouponValidator.cs:13
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/InventoryStreamId.cs:44
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/ItemPickedHandler.cs:54
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/TeamManagement/GetPendingInvitations.cs:32
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:311
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Payments/Payments/Processing/StubPaymentGateway.cs:23
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/ChangeRequests/SubmitChangeRequestEndpoint.cs:26
D17 · Explicit Debt
- CommentedOutCode src/Promotions/Promotions.Api/Queries/CalculateDiscount.cs:96
- CommentedOutCode tests/Payments/Payments.Api.IntegrationTests/Processing/GetPaymentsForOrderEndpointTests.cs:109
D17 · Explicit Debt
- Dead code: ExpectedTotals tests/Customer Experience/Storefront.E2ETests/WellKnownTestData.cs:103
- Dead code: EbayPublishOfferResponse src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces/Adapters/EbayMarketplaceAdapter.cs:518
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: Shipment src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment/Shipments/Shipment.cs:0
- TooManyMethods: Order src/Orders/Orders/Placement/Order.cs:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/AddAddress.cs:33
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) src/Shopping/Shopping/Cart/AddItemToCart.cs:53
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Identity/BackofficeIdentityDbContext.cs:39
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) src/Pricing/Pricing/Products/ProductPrice.cs:99
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/NetworkInventorySummaryViewProjection.cs:13
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/Account/GetDashboardViews.cs:26
D8 · Code Coverage
- CRAP 132: CarrierWebhookHandler.Handle src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment/Shipments/CarrierHandlers.cs:283
- CRAP 132: ListingApprovedHandler.Handle src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces.Api/Listings/ListingApprovedHandler.cs:31
D8 · Code Coverage
- CRAP 110: CustomerAddress.Update src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/CustomerAddress.cs:95
- CRAP 110: CheckWorkOrderSLAHandler.Handle src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment/WorkOrders/SLAMonitoring.cs:22
D8 · Code Coverage
- CRAP 56: RecallCascadeHandler.Handle src/Listings/Listings/Listing/RecallCascadeHandler.cs:16
- CRAP 56: SweepOrphanedEbayDraftsHandler.Handle src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces.Api/Listings/SweepOrphanedEbayDraftsHandler.cs:34
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Dashboard.razor › ShowChangeRequestDecisionToast (cyclomatic 16) src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:372
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Deprecated: xunit
D17 · Explicit Debt
- BareSuppressMessage src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Authentication/Login.cs:153
D18 · Solution Shape
- Monorepo: only 1 of 2 solutions was scored
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ProductEdit.razor › SaveChangesAsync (cognitive 20) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Products/ProductEdit.razor:253
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Dashboard.razor › ShowChangeRequestDecisionToast (cognitive 18) src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:372
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- Duplicate address types with slightly different property sets. Both represent a shipping address but have different property names (e.g., `StateProvince` vs `State`, `AddressLine1` vs `Street`), causing ambiguity about which type to use in the `Orders` vs `Common` namespaces.
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (24 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Listings/ListingDetail.razor:269
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (19 lines × 2) src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/VendorIdentitySeedData.cs:25
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (17 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Marketplaces/CategoryMappingsList.razor:111
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 3) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Pages/Dashboard.razor:201
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:59
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Components/Pages/Products.razor:108
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Api/BackofficeHub.cs:37
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/DisposeQuarantine.cs:24
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: Order (LCOM4 4) src/Orders/Orders/Placement/Order.cs:12
D8 · Code Coverage
- CRAP 156: OrderDecider.HandleReservationCommitted src/Orders/Orders/Placement/OrderDecider.cs:425
D8 · Code Coverage
- CRAP 72: VendorRefreshEndpoint.Refresh src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/VendorRefreshToken.cs:21
Recommendation — 91 finding(s)
D20 · ADR Quality
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0062-cross-product-exchange-payments-choreography.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0061-cross-product-exchange-replacement-reservation.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0060-inventory-bc-remaster-rationale.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0059-fulfillment-bc-remaster-rationale.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0058-dcb-promotions-coupon-redemption.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0057-walmart-deactivation-identifier-design.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0056-marketplace-adapter-resilience-patterns.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0055-submission-status-polling-architecture.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0054-ebay-sell-api-authentication.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0053-walmart-marketplace-api-authentication.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0052-amazon-spapi-authentication.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0051-vault-implementation-strategy.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0050-marketplaces-product-summary-acl.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0049-category-mapping-ownership.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0048-marketplace-document-entity-design.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0043-storefront-web-technology-options.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0042-catalog-namespace-uuid-v5-convention.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0041-product-catalog-es-migration-decisions.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0040-requested-integration-event-convention.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0039-canonical-validator-placement.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0038-identity-access-management-evaluation.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0037-ordernote-aggregate-ownership.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0036-bff-projections-strategy.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0035-backoffice-signalr-hub-design.md
- ADR lacks an enforcement field docs/decisions/0034-backoffice-bff-architecture.md
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Customer Identity/CustomerIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Inventory/Inventory.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Listings/Listings.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Marketplaces/Marketplaces.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Orders/Orders.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Payments/Payments.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Pricing/Pricing.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Product Catalog/ProductCatalog.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Returns/Returns.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Shopping/Shopping.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/Vendor Portal/VendorPortal.Web/Dockerfile
D17 · Explicit Debt
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Inventory/Inventory/Management/AdjustInventory.cs:119
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/Common/SharedShippingAddress.cs:33
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/Common/SharedShippingAddress.cs:41
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/Common/SharedShippingAddress.cs:49
- ObsoleteWithoutCallers tests/Backoffice/Backoffice.E2ETests/StepDefinitions/SessionExpirySteps.cs:96
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #2
D16 · Bus Factor
- Further sole-owners (lower concentration)
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Program.cs:52
D26 · Project Cohesion
- Split Messages.Contracts
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
Info — 55 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.AppHost
- Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.PostgreSQL
- Outdated: Aspire.Hosting.RabbitMQ
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http.Resilience
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.ServiceDiscovery
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Extensions.Hosting
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.AspNetCore
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Http
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry.Instrumentation.Runtime
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.OpenApi
- Outdated: OpenTelemetry
- Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore
- Outdated: WolverineFx.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: WolverineFx.Http
- Outdated: WolverineFx.Http.FluentValidation
- Outdated: WolverineFx.RabbitMQ
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Npgsql.EntityFrameworkCore.PostgreSQL
- Outdated: coverlet.collector
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt
D10 · Test Quality
- Skipped (documented): ShipmentDelivered_Creates_ReturnEligibilityWindow_In_Returns_BC tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/FulfillmentToReturnsPipelineTests.cs:16
- Skipped (documented): ShipmentDelivered_Is_Idempotent_When_Redelivered tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/FulfillmentToReturnsPipelineTests.cs:59
- Skipped (documented): ReturnCompleted_Is_Delivered_To_Inventory_BC_Queue tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/ReturnsToInventoryPipelineTests.cs:18
- Skipped (documented): ReturnCompleted_With_Non_Restockable_Items_Still_Routes_To_Inventory tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/ReturnsToInventoryPipelineTests.cs:76
- Skipped (documented): ReturnCompleted_Updates_Order_Saga_And_Emits_RefundRequested tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/ReturnsToOrdersPipelineTests.cs:17
- Skipped (documented): ReturnCompleted_Closes_Saga_When_Return_Window_Already_Expired tests/Returns/Returns.Api.IntegrationTests/CrossBcSmokeTests/ReturnsToOrdersPipelineTests.cs:96
D10 · Test Quality
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list CritterSupply.slnx package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 17 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 38 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Name — 54 field(s)
- BackofficeUserInfo.FirstName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Authentication/Login.cs:48
- BackofficeUserInfo.LastName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Authentication/Login.cs:49
- BackofficeUser.FirstName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Identity/BackofficeUser.cs:12
- BackofficeUser.LastName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Identity/BackofficeUser.cs:13
- CreateBackofficeUser.FirstName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/CreateBackofficeUser.cs:15
- CreateBackofficeUser.LastName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/CreateBackofficeUser.cs:16
- CreateBackofficeUserResponse.FirstName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/CreateBackofficeUser.cs:58
- CreateBackofficeUserResponse.LastName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/CreateBackofficeUser.cs:59
- BackofficeUserSummary.FirstName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/GetBackofficeUsers.cs:19
- BackofficeUserSummary.LastName src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/GetBackofficeUsers.cs:20
- BackofficeUserInfoResponse.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:25
- BackofficeUserInfoResponse.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:26
- BackofficeAuthState.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthState.cs:12
- BackofficeAuthState.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthState.cs:13
- BackofficeUserSummaryDto.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/IBackofficeIdentityClient.cs:53
- BackofficeUserSummaryDto.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/IBackofficeIdentityClient.cs:54
- CreateUserResultDto.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/IBackofficeIdentityClient.cs:68
- CreateUserResultDto.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/IBackofficeIdentityClient.cs:69
- CustomerDto.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:32
- CustomerDto.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:33
- CustomerDetailView.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerDetailView.cs:9
- CustomerDetailView.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerDetailView.cs:10
- CustomerServiceView.FirstName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerServiceView.cs:9
- CustomerServiceView.LastName src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerServiceView.cs:10
- LoginResponse.FirstName src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Program.cs:134
- LoginResponse.LastName src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Program.cs:134
- LoginResponse.FirstName src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:45
- LoginResponse.LastName src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:45
- CurrentUserResponse.FirstName src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:50
- CurrentUserResponse.LastName src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:50
- CreateCustomer.FirstName src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/CreateCustomer.cs:15
- CreateCustomer.LastName src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/CreateCustomer.cs:16
- Customer.FirstName src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/Customer.cs:11
- Customer.LastName src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/Customer.cs:12
- CustomerResponse.FirstName src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/GetCustomer.cs:19
- CustomerResponse.LastName src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/GetCustomer.cs:20
- CurrentUserResponse.FirstName src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/GetCurrentUser.cs:8
- CurrentUserResponse.LastName src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/GetCurrentUser.cs:8
- LoginResponse.FirstName src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/Login.cs:18
- LoginResponse.LastName src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/Login.cs:18
Email — 50 field(s)
- Login.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Authentication/Login.cs:13
- BackofficeUserInfo.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Authentication/Login.cs:47
- BackofficeUser.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/Identity/BackofficeUser.cs:10
- ChangeBackofficeUserRoleResponse.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/ChangeBackofficeUserRole.cs:33
- CreateBackofficeUser.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/CreateBackofficeUser.cs:13
- CreateBackofficeUserResponse.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/CreateBackofficeUser.cs:57
- DeactivateBackofficeUserResponse.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/DeactivateBackofficeUser.cs:35
- BackofficeUserSummary.Email src/Backoffice Identity/BackofficeIdentity/UserManagement/GetBackofficeUsers.cs:18
- LoginRequest.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:7
- BackofficeUserInfoResponse.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthService.cs:24
- BackofficeAuthState.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice.Web/Auth/BackofficeAuthState.cs:11
- BackofficeUserSummaryDto.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/IBackofficeIdentityClient.cs:52
- CreateUserResultDto.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/IBackofficeIdentityClient.cs:67
- CustomerDto.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:31
- CorrespondenceHistoryView.CustomerEmail src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CorrespondenceHistoryView.cs:9
- CustomerDetailView.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerDetailView.cs:8
- CustomerServiceView.Email src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerServiceView.cs:8
- OrderDetailView.CustomerEmail src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/OrderDetailView.cs:9
- CorrespondenceMetricsView.PendingEmailCount src/Backoffice/Backoffice/DashboardReporting/CorrespondenceMetricsView.cs:18
- CorrespondenceMetricsView.DeliveredEmailCount src/Backoffice/Backoffice/DashboardReporting/CorrespondenceMetricsView.cs:23
- CorrespondenceMetricsView.FailedEmailCount src/Backoffice/Backoffice/DashboardReporting/CorrespondenceMetricsView.cs:28
- EmailMessage.ToEmail src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Providers/ProviderTypes.cs:13
- LoginRequest.Email src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Program.cs:133
- LoginResponse.Email src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Web/Program.cs:134
- LoginResponse.Email src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:45
- CurrentUserResponse.Email src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:50
- CreateCustomer.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/CreateCustomer.cs:14
- Customer.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/Customer.cs:10
- CustomerResponse.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/GetCustomer.cs:18
- GetCustomerByEmail.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/GetCustomerByEmail.cs:12
- CurrentUserResponse.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/GetCurrentUser.cs:8
- LoginRequest.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/Login.cs:16
- LoginResponse.Email src/Customer Identity/Customers/Authentication/Login.cs:18
- VendorTenantCreated.ContactEmail src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/VendorIdentity/VendorTenantCreated.cs:10
- VendorUserInvited.Email src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/VendorIdentity/VendorUserInvited.cs:10
- VendorLoginRequest.Email src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/VendorLogin.cs:11
- VendorLoginResponse.Email src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity.Api/Auth/VendorLogin.cs:15
- CreateVendorTenant.ContactEmail src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/CreateVendorTenant.cs:8
- VendorTenant.ContactEmail src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/TenantManagement/VendorTenant.cs:9
- InviteVendorUser.Email src/Vendor Identity/VendorIdentity/UserInvitations/InviteVendorUser.cs:13
Address — 22 field(s)
- CustomerAddressDto.PostalCode src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:48
- CustomerAddressView.PostalCode src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Composition/CustomerDetailView.cs:25
- AddCustomerAddressRequest.PostalCode src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Commands/AddCustomerAddress.cs:65
- ProvideCheckoutShippingAddressRequest.PostalCode src/Customer Experience/Storefront.Api/Commands/ProvideCheckoutShippingAddress.cs:59
- CustomerAddressDto.PostalCode src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:36
- AddAddressRequest.PostalCode src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:61
- AddressSummary.PostalCode src/Customer Experience/Storefront/Composition/CheckoutView.cs:37
- AddAddress.PostalCode src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/AddAddress.cs:19
- AddressSnapshot.PostalCode src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/AddressSnapshot.cs:14
- CorrectedAddress.PostalCode src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/AddressVerificationResult.cs:20
- CustomerAddress.PostalCode src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/CustomerAddress.cs:17
- AddressSummary.PostalCode src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/GetCustomerAddresses.cs:26
- UpdateAddress.PostalCode src/Customer Identity/Customers/AddressBook/UpdateAddress.cs:20
- ShippingAddress.PostalCode src/Fulfillment/Fulfillment/Shipments/FulfillmentRequested.cs:19
- ShippingAddressResponse.PostalCode src/Orders/Orders.Api/Checkout/GetCheckoutEndpoint.cs:98
- ProvideShippingAddressRequest.PostalCode src/Orders/Orders/Checkout/ProvideShippingAddress.cs:16
- ShippingAddress.PostalCode src/Orders/Orders/Checkout/ShippingAddress.cs:8
- ShippingAddressProvided.PostalCode src/Orders/Orders/Checkout/ShippingAddressProvided.cs:8
- ShippingAddress.PostalCode src/Orders/Orders/Placement/ShippingAddress.cs:11
- SharedShippingAddress.PostalCode src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/Common/SharedShippingAddress.cs:27
- AddressSnapshot.PostalCode src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/CustomerIdentity/AddressSnapshot.cs:13
- ShippingAddress.PostalCode src/Shared/Messages.Contracts/Orders/ShippingAddress.cs:12
Phone — 2 field(s)
- CustomerDto.PhoneNumber src/Backoffice/Backoffice/Clients/ICustomerIdentityClient.cs:34
- SmsMessage.ToPhoneNumber src/Correspondence/Correspondence/Providers/ProviderTypes.cs:23