Public report — EventFlow, published 29 Jun 2026. Concrete security findings (CVE IDs, secret matches, dependency versions) are hidden in this version; ask the repo owner for the full report.
Watchdog 29-06-2026 @ 22:24 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Eventflow/EventFlow

39% At Risk

Medium · 29,536 LoC · 78 projects · rebuild ~0.3 person-years · weakest lens: Security (27%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated — reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this ▸

61/66dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic · confidence 1.0 · 5 LLM-assisted, advisory
80findings with an exact file:lineof 147 — the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
66/101dimensions across the health lenses29536 LoC · 78 projects — wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.

eventflow/EventFlow carries serious risk (39%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.

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 (27%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Readiness (43%) is the next concern — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection /… (Data Protection); MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing (Web-Security Posture); Make types internal by default (Library API & versioning).

For scale: Medium (~29,536 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.3 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

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 27% · 46% weightReadiness 43% · 25% weightMaturity 44% · 14% weightCode Health 61% · 8% weightArchitecture 65% · 4% weightPerformance 69% · 2% weightDomain Modelling 78% · 1% weight

Raise Security 27 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 39 → ~50.

Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 48%Tests 44%Analyzers 1%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €17,000–€83,000
Cost to rebuild€17,000–€83,000 (0.2–0.5 person-years (282–874 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityHigh — harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.7× (at 39% quality) — the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeMedium · 70% boilerplate · 17% straight-line · 13% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.3 person-years of build effort (about ~€50,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Security at 27% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.4) — service/app, CQRS, domain model × a 0.7× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only — most sensitive to the hourly rate and the domain tier (both tunable in config).

Top priorities

The highest-leverage moves; the full ranked list is in the Roadmap below.

1
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
+10.8 pts · Medium effort · Data Protection
2
Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
+10.7 pts · Medium effort · Web-Security Posture
3
Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.
+3.4 pts · Low effort · Dependency Vulnerabilities

Diagnosis — what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens · High · Value at risk
This is a Medium asset (~0.3 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Security at 27%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Medium, ~0.3 person-years rebuild (29,536 LoC) · weakest lens: Security 27%
→ Direct remediation budget at Security first — highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Root cause: an un-encapsulated domain · Medium · Root cause
26 findings across public setters, anemic types and primitive ids share one root cause — the domain layer doesn't protect its own invariants. Fixing the encapsulation pattern resolves them together, rather than chasing each finding.
Evidence: DM5 setters: 1 · DM4 anemic: 25 · DM2 primitive ids: 0
→ Address encapsulation as one pattern (private setters + behaviour + strongly-typed ids), not 100 separate findings.
Highest-leverage move · Medium · Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.). The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
→ Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
Improving trajectory · Info · Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+3.2 pts/run over 9 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +3.2 pts/run over 9 runs

Trajectory

Where this codebase is heading — something a one-shot snapshot cannot show. 39 ▲ 1 over 9 runs.

025507510026 Junnow
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurityDomain ModellingPerformance

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

arch EventFlow EventFlow EventFlow.AspNetCore AspNetCore EventFlow.AspNetCore->EventFlow EventFlow.CodeStyle CodeStyle EventFlow.Elasticsearch Elasticsearch EventFlow.Elasticsearch->EventFlow EventFlow.EntityFramework EntityFramework EventFlow.EntityFramework->EventFlow EventFlow.EventStores.EventStore EventStore EventFlow.EventStores.EventStore->EventFlow EventFlow.Hangfire Hangfire EventFlow.Hangfire->EventFlow EventFlow.MongoDB MongoDB EventFlow.MongoDB->EventFlow EventFlow.MsSql MsSql EventFlow.Sql Sql EventFlow.MsSql->EventFlow.Sql EventFlow.PostgreSql PostgreSql EventFlow.PostgreSql->EventFlow.Sql EventFlow.RabbitMQ RabbitMQ EventFlow.RabbitMQ->EventFlow EventFlow.Redis Redis EventFlow.Redis->EventFlow EventFlow.SQLite SQLite EventFlow.SQLite->EventFlow.Sql EventFlow.Sql->EventFlow

At a glance — Code Health · 61% · Adequate · gated by X5

At a glance — Architecture · 65% · Adequate · gated by AX2

At a glance — Maturity · 44% · Weak · gated by D34, M2

At a glance — Readiness · 43% · Weak · gated by P5, P10

At a glance — Security · 27% · Weak · gated by D30, D36, C1, S1

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 78% · Strong

At a glance — Performance · 69% · Adequate

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP categoryFindingsSeverity
A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components16High / Critical

Roadmap

First, secure sensitive data at rest and enforce strict encryption standards, including replacing weak hashing algorithms and implementing proper key management. Next, harden the web security posture by adopting stronger cryptographic methods for content and passwords. Then, restrict the public API surface by making types internal by default to prevent breaking changes. Finally, establish a robust disaster recovery plan with documented RTO/RPO and implement automated deployment strategies with health checks to ensure safe releases and quick rollbacks.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).+10.8 ptsMediumData Protection
Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.+10.7 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+3.4 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness.+3.0 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Resolve the 4 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with EfMsSqlSnapshotTests.cs, EfThingyGetQueryHandler.cs, EntityFrameworkTestExtensions.cs.+2.9 ptsLowComment Value
Resolve the 6 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities.+2.5 ptsLowDependency Vulnerabilities
Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.3 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing
Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing.+2.3 ptsLowSupply-chain Provenance & Signing

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 63 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 0% slop · 19% mixed · 81% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Source/EventFlow.SourceGenerators/EventFlow.SourceGenerators.csproj6.1MixedExplicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj
Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsAggregatesExtensions.cs6.6MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgrader.cs6.7MixedExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs6.9MixedCyclomatic Complexity: AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cyclomatic 16)
Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/HangfireJobRunner.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/IHangfireJobRunner.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers
Source/EventFlow.Tests/UnitTests/Core/VersionedTypes/VersionedTypeDefinitionServiceTestSuite.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventStoreBase.cs7.3MixedExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs7.4MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (32 lines × 2)
Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (36 lines × 2)
Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs7.8MixedCode Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)
Source/EventFlow.TestHelpers/Suites/TestSuiteForSnapshotStore.cs7.8MixedTest Quality: No assertions: TheSameSnapshotVersionCanBeSavedMultipleTimes
Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/EventStores/EntityFrameworkEventPersistence.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Tests/UnitTests/ExternalServices/Routing/RoutingServiceTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping/Domain/Model/CargoModel/Entities/TransportLeg.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping/Domain/Model/CargoModel/Jobs/VerifyCargoItineraryJob.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow.Hangfire.Tests/Integration/HangfireJobRunnerBackwardCompatibilityTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable
Source/EventFlow.MsSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/EventStores/MsSqlEventStoreTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow.MsSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/ReadStores/MsSqlReadModelStoreTests.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: TodoComment
Source/EventFlow.MsSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/ReadStores/ReadModels/MsSqlThingyReadModel.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable

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. 61 of 66 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 66 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D31D34D35D36D39AX1AX10AX2AX3AX5AX6AX8AX9C1DM1DM4DM5DM6DM8GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P10P2P3P4P5P8PF1PF2PF3S1X1X2X3X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

How to trust any code-health report — three questions
  1. 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, 80 of 147 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
  2. 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.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0✓ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0✓ deterministic
jscpdCode duplication✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 · 0.31.0✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 · 0.69.3✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementLocal LLM◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019f157c-2a89-79c7-8573-b23e230f20cc.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

  • 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.
  • 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.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

Limitations & what we did not check

Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.

Per-dimension blind spots

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
  • D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
  • D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
  • D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
  • 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.
  • D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
  • D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
  • D22 Internal API Consistency: API-surface coherence is an LLM judgement over a sample of the public surface — consistency of intent across the whole API is approximated, not exhaustively verified.
  • D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
  • D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • 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.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
  • D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
  • 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.
  • DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
  • DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
  • 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

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) — D25 sets the ADR-conformance fraction over sampled code, D22 judges API accuracy over a sample. These are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance at 16.

AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cyclomatic 16)Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:105

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

2 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was EventUpgradeManager.UpgradeAsync at 26.

EventUpgradeManager.UpgradeAsync (cognitive 26)Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgradeManager.cs:89
AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cognitive 24)Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:105

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D3 · God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 · Code Duplication9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

9 duplicated block group(s) detected.

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×2Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:145
Duplicated block (36 lines × 2)Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs:108
Duplicated block (32 lines × 2)Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:132
Duplicated block (26 lines × 3)Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs:66
Duplicated block (13 lines × 2)Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:71

+ 3 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D5 · Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

78 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 74 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: EntityDescriptor (LCOM4 4)Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/ReadStores/EntityFrameworkReadModelStore.cs:277

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D9 · Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the test suite has a healthy mix of unit / integration / end-to-end tests.

Method: Test projects classified (Unit/Integration/BDD/E2E) from compiled metadata; test methods counted exhaustively across projects with placement-agnostic disk fallback. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1261 test methods: 1261 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md.

D10 · Test Quality9.6 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests truly assert behaviour rather than just running the code.

Method: Per-test assertions, skips, and mock references analyzed via Roslyn; structured skip-reason tags (BUG:/ENV:) separate documented deferrals from debt. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

1 skipped, 8 zero-assertion, 5 mock references across 350 tests.

No assertions: CreateEventHelper · ×8Source/EventFlow.Tests/IntegrationTests/BackwardCompatibilityTests.cs:79
Skipped test: MultipleInstancesWithSamePathFailSource/EventFlow.Tests/UnitTests/EventStores/ConcurrentFilesEventPersistanceTests.cs:90
Mock framework: Moq · ×5

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D11 · Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the tests pass reliably, with no flakiness.

Method: Suite re-run N times within tiered wall-clock budgets (unit to e2e); tests failing non-deterministically across runs flagged; guarded tests retried when #if guards detected.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: not included — too large to re-run within its budget; other: measured (0 flaky).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 · Dependency Hygiene8.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether dependencies are current, secure, and not bloated.

Method: Manifest scan via dotnet list package across all projects; worst-signal-per-package deduction (saturating for vulnerabilities, capped-linear for deprecation/outdated) per KLoC. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

33 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.

Outdated: JetBrains.Annotations · ×33

What to do

  1. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d12_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 · License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether the licenses of third-party packages are compatible with your policy.

Method: Third-party package licenses resolved from declared package metadata and checked against the configured policy (allow/deny/copyleft). Deterministic; clean = no incompatible license found at metadata depth.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 of 43 packages use a banned license.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md.

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 · Bus Factor8.4 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether knowledge is concentrated in too few people (the "bus factor").

Method: Living knowledge per author via time-decayed commit attribution (6-month half-life, focus weighting) across largest source files. Deterministic, avoids blame's mechanical-refactor false positives.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 8.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

27 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Source/EventFlow/Core/ReflectionHelper.cs.

Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d16_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D17 · Explicit Debt9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

39 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 29493 LoC (0.5/KLoC) → score 9.1.

NoWarnInCsprojSource/EventFlow.SourceGenerators/EventFlow.SourceGenerators.csproj:4
ObsoleteWithCallers · ×18Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/HangfireJobRunner.cs:40
TodoComment · ×14Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Tests/UnitTests/ExternalServices/Routing/RoutingServiceTests.cs:52
BarePragmaDisable · ×6Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/EventStores/EntityFrameworkEventPersistence.cs:92

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D18 · Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the solution is laid out in a sensible, conventional structure.

Method: Solution structure: project count, decomposition, shell-project detection, build success (confirmed failures cap the score); traced to actual .sln files and binaries. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

78 projects, 3212 .cs files, 50513 hand-written lines of code (29493 production / 21020 test), 154 inter-project edges.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md.

D19 · Documentation Quality / 10Weak◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Weak / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

EventFlow's documentation is a single README with no architecture or design docs, plus only the EventFlow NuGet package status (1/971 coverage) and a trivial one-line dotnet add command. The README itself is mostly marketing copy: it links to an external getting-started guide, dos/donts, FAQ, Discord server, and a migration guide for v1.x; it mentions features like easy use, high configurability, no threads/background workers, MIT licensing, and the versioning branches (1.x, 0.x, 2.x) with a brief migration note. It also notes that documentation for each branch is in the repo but clips mid-sentence before committing to any further structure or completeness.

Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow(netstandard2.1) · ×12Source/EventFlow/EventFlow.csproj
The README is a single page with no architecture or design docs; future branches such as EventFlow.Sql/MS SQL would require separate documentation.README.md

What to do

  1. Resolve the 12 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with EventFlow.EntityFramework.csproj, EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Queries.InMemory.csproj, EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (12 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 The README is a single page with no architecture or design docs; future… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D21 · Naming Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Test classes and related types in the UnicodeTests namespace use non-ASCII characters (ä, ö) in their names, which is inconsistent with the rest of the codebase that uses ASCII-only identifiers.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D22 · Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the internal API surface is consistent and coherent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature over a sample of the public API surface (IsPackable or .Contracts types). Sampled, advisory; confidence discounted by model uncertainty.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 API inconsistencies across a 400-member sample of 2717 exposed types.

Redundant/Confusing Overlap: The concrete class `AggregateRoot` and its interface `IAggregateRoot` both expose a `CommitAsync` method. While technically one is an explicit interface implementation and the other is a direct method, the naming and signature overlap creates confusion about which to use. More critically, `AggregateStore` also has a `StoreAsync` and `UpdateAsync` which handle persistence, but `AggregateRoot.CommitAsync` is the domain-level operation that triggers persistence. The inconsistency is that `AggregateRoot` exposes `CommitAsync` which returns `IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>`, whereas `AggregateStore` exposes `StoreAsync` which also returns `IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>`. This suggests a potential duplication of intent: one for domain-level commit and one for storage-level store. However, the bigger issue is the naming convention for loading: `AggregateStore.LoadAsync` vs `EventStoreBase.LoadEventsAsync` vs `EventStoreBase.LoadAggregateAsync`.
Overloaded Method with Different Return Types: `AggregateStore` (and its interface `IAggregateStore`) has two `UpdateAsync` methods. One returns `IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>` and the other returns `IAggregateUpdateResult<TExecutionResult>`. While the signatures are distinct enough (different generic parameters), the name `UpdateAsync` is used for two very different operations: one that just persists events and one that executes a command and returns a result. This is a minor inconsistency in naming clarity.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d22_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D24 · Comment Value / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it — explaining WHY (valuable) rather than WHAT (redundant).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on deterministically sampled inline comments with surrounding code; findings verified back to sampled comments by substring match. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective Critical / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 valuable / 4 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 4 shown with locations.

redundant comment · ×4Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework.Tests/EntityFrameworkTestExtensions.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with EfMsSqlSnapshotTests.cs, EfThingyGetQueryHandler.cs, EntityFrameworkTestExtensions.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d24_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D26 · Project Cohesion9.1 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 9.1 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1 of 23 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

Split EventFlow

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D27 · Navigability4.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call — low indirection and co-located slices read easier.

Method: Call indirection (interface hops, cross-namespace calls, slice-locality scaled) over a sampled set of method invocations, size-aware baseline. Sampled; confidence discounted by symbol-resolution gaps.

Coverage: Slice locality from the first namespace segments, SAMPLED (≤400 methods) — not exhaustive.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 4.7 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

84 % of calls cross a namespace and 8 % go through an interface, but 47 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.

Scattered collaborators

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Git-history secret scan via gitleaks detect over full history in an isolated checkout; each match flagged High. Exhaustive; degrades cleanly when tool absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep --config auto across the repo; severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a 0-10 wide normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities2.6 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether any dependencies have known published vulnerabilities (CVEs), direct or transitive.

Method: NuGet CVE scan via dotnet list package --vulnerable including transitive; severity tally (Critical/High/Medium/Low) to 0-10 tight normalizer. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades when absent.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 2.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

16 vulnerable package(s): 1 critical, 8 high, 6 medium, 1 low.

High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0 · ×8detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.6.0detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.10.3 · ×6detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable
Low CVE: Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.56.0detected by dotnet list package --vulnerable

What to do

  1. Resolve the 8 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 issue-level).
  2. Resolve the 6 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D31 · IaC & Container Security10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether Dockerfiles / Terraform / Kubernetes config follow security best practices.

Method: IaC/container misconfiguration scan via trivy config (Dockerfile/Terraform/K8s/Helm/CloudFormation); severity rules to 0-10 moderate normalizer. NotApplicable without manifests. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

trivy found no infrastructure-as-code or container misconfigurations.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d31_recommendation.md.

D34 · Knowledge Freshness0.4 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned — last understood long ago by someone now gone quiet. The sibling of the bus factor: D16 asks who owns it, D34 asks whether anyone still knows it.

Method: File orphaning as total living-knowledge decay below one focused-commit's worth within a year, computed per-file from the D16 decay model. Exhaustive, deterministic over fixed history.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

164 of 171 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/ReadStores/EntityFrameworkReadModelStore.cs.

Dormant codebase

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d34_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling; coupling through a build step, config, or non-source file isn't seen.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Strongest change-coupling: EventUpgrader.cs↔ReadModelPopulator.cs 50%

Change coupling: EventUpgrader.cs ↔ ReadModelPopulator.csSource/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgrader.cs

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 0.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D39 · IL Efficiency10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Method: IL instruction count per method, read from the BUILT first-party assemblies via Mono.Cecil (the target is compiled on a deep run); scored on the fraction of methods whose emitted IL body exceeds the size threshold. Sees compiler-generated bloat source can't; not-applicable when the target fails to build. Deterministic.

Maturity: DocumentedVerifiedPrevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

1 of 1189 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.

IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budgetSource/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:109

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d39_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX1 · Captive dependencies4.3 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • `FilesEventPersistence` is registered as a SINGLETON but its constructor takes `IFilesEventLocator filesEventLocator`, which is registered as Transient. The singleton captures one instance of the transient dependency forever — defeating its lifetime (a per-request DbContext shared across all requests is a classic data-corruption/threading bug). Make the singleton resolve `IFilesEventLocator` per-use (inject `IServiceScopeFactory` or a factory func), or align the lifetimes. (×5) — FilesEventPersistence.cs:35, FilesEventPersistence.cs:35, FilesEventPersistence.cs:35, …

What to do

  • Don't inject scoped/transient services into singletons; resolve them per-use via IServiceScopeFactory or a factory delegate, or align the lifetimes.
AX10 · Code composition9.7 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

  • The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
AX2 · Stateful singletons2.7 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

  • `FilesEventPersistence` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_globalSequenceNumber, _eventLog; e.g. `_globalSequenceNumber` at line 154). (×5) — FilesEventPersistence.cs:35, FilesEventPersistence.cs:35, FilesEventPersistence.cs:35, …
  • `InMemoryReadStore` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_readModels; e.g. `_readModels` at line 77). (×5) — InMemoryReadStore.cs:34, InMemoryReadStore.cs:34, InMemoryReadStore.cs:34, …

What to do

  • Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

AX5 · Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the codebase has a recognisable, scale-appropriate structure (a named architectural style, or modular enough for its size) rather than being an ad-hoc ball of mud.

Method: Roslyn plus csproj analysis: architecture style detection (DDD, clean, vertical-slice, CQRS) and structure fitness for repo size. Deterministic.

AX6 · Interface segregation9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat — the Interface-Segregation principle (SOLID 'I').

Method: Roslyn scan: public interface member counts; fat-interface threshold (over 15 members) flagged per type. Deterministic, type-level.

  • `IMetadata` declares 20 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. (×5) — IMetadata.cs:29, IMetadata.cs:29, IMetadata.cs:29, …
  • `IEventFlowConfiguration` declares 17 members. A wide interface forces every implementer and caller to depend on methods they don't use (the Interface-Segregation 'I' in SOLID). Split it into focused role-interfaces. (×5) — IEventFlowConfiguration.cs:29, IEventFlowConfiguration.cs:29, IEventFlowConfiguration.cs:29, …

What to do

  • Split fat interfaces into focused role-interfaces so clients depend only on what they use.
AX8 · Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects — tests may depend on production, never the reverse.

Method: Csproj graph: each production project checked for references to test projects (identified by test-framework presence, not name). Zero violations is clean. Deterministic.

AX9 · CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free — a query that writes persistent state or raises events breaks CQS and makes reads unsafe to retry, cache, or route to a read replica.

Method: Roslyn scan: CQRS handlers classified query-vs-command by interface (IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler<TQuery,TResult>) and name convention (*Query/Get*/Find* vs *Command); each query handler's body checked for persistent-state writes (SaveChanges/repository Add-Update) or event publishes by resolved invocation. Deterministic, type-level, exhaustive over the detected handlers.

Coverage: Population: CQRS handlers identified by IQueryHandler/ICommandHandler/IRequestHandler interface + *Query/Get*/Find*/*Command NAME convention; query purity then checked exhaustively within that set — a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C1 · Data Protection0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Whether sensitive data is encrypted at rest and in transit and keys are vaulted.

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: encryption presence (EF ColumnEncryption, key-vault references, HTTPS enforcement) and key-derivation KDF detection. Deterministic.

  • No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.

What to do

  • Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
  • Enforce HTTPS (UseHttpsRedirection / RequireHttpsMetadata) so data in transit is always encrypted.
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

DM4 · Rich vs anemic model4.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates/entities carry the behaviour that protects their invariants, rather than being data bags driven by external services.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entity method BODIES classified mutator-vs-query — only methods that mutate the entity's own declared state count as invariant-protecting behaviour, so a getter/passthrough doesn't rescue an anemic class. Deterministic, exhaustive over domain-layer entities.

Coverage: Population: entities by name/base convention; rich-vs-anemic judged by classifying each method body mutator-vs-query — logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

  • `AggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×5) — AggregateRoot.cs:35, AggregateRoot.cs:35, AggregateRoot.cs:35, …
  • `IAggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×5) — IAggregateRoot.cs:51, IAggregateRoot.cs:51, IAggregateRoot.cs:51, …
  • `AggregateSaga` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×5) — AggregateSaga.cs:37, AggregateSaga.cs:37, AggregateSaga.cs:37, …
  • `ISnapshotAggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. (×5) — ISnapshotAggregateRoot.cs:28, ISnapshotAggregateRoot.cs:28, ISnapshotAggregateRoot.cs:28, …
  • `Cargo` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Cargo.cs:28
  • `TransportLeg` is an aggregate/entity with 6 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — TransportLeg.cs:31
  • `Location` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Location.cs:27
  • `Voyage` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Voyage.cs:29
  • `CarrierMovement` is an aggregate/entity with 4 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — CarrierMovement.cs:30

What to do

  • Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 · Encapsulated state9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state (private/init-only setters) instead of exposing public setters that bypass invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): public setters on entities detected; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

  • `Location` exposes public setter(s) (Name). — Location.cs:27

What to do

  • Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether the domain layer stays free of infrastructure dependencies (EF/Marten/HTTP/ASP.NET) — the clean-architecture dependency rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES — resolved calls and object-creations into EF/Marten/HTTP/Mongo/Redis/message-bus types (not just a namespace allowlist). Deterministic, symbol-resolved, exhaustive over domain-layer bodies, DDD-native.

Coverage: Domain layer identified by NAMESPACE heuristic; infrastructure then resolved by symbol in member SIGNATURES and method/accessor BODIES — rename the layer and the check evaporates.

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Unreviewed-generation residue: shipped members still throwing NotImplementedException, and placeholder string literals left in non-test, non-generated code. Scored as a quality signature, never as a claim about authorship.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: NotImplementedException throws and placeholder string literals in non-test, non-generated shipped code. Deterministic, code-shape signature.

  • A shipped member still throws NotImplementedException — generated scaffolding that was never completed. Implement it or remove the dead surface. (×5) — AggregateRoot.cs:207, AggregateRoot.cs:207, AggregateRoot.cs:207, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete NotImplementedException stubs and replace placeholder literals before shipping.
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs4.1 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Unfinished work detected by code SHAPE, not keywords: members that only throw a "not implemented" exception, methods that take inputs and return a constant, async methods that never await, dead `if (false)` / `#if false` branches, and skeleton types most of whose members are holes. A real, objective slice of technical debt.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: incompleteness by code shape (constant-returning methods, async-never-await, #if false branches, skeleton types), not keyword-gated. Deterministic, code-shape heuristic.

  • `Apply` takes parameters but its body is empty — it accepts inputs and does nothing. Either implement it or remove it. (×5) — JsonOptions.cs:29, JsonOptions.cs:29, JsonOptions.cs:29, …
  • `UpgradeAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×15) — EventUpgradeManager.cs:53, EventUpgradeManager.cs:53, EventUpgradeManager.cs:53, …
  • `NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy` has 7 unfinished members out of 8 — a scaffolded type that was never implemented. (×5) — NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy.cs:33, NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy.cs:33, NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy.cs:33, …
  • `BeforeAggregateUpdate` looks like it should compute a result but its body just returns a constant — a placeholder return that was never filled in. (×5) — NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy.cs:35, NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy.cs:35, NoAggregateStoreResilienceStrategy.cs:35, …

What to do

  • Finish or delete the unfinished stubs (NotImplementedException / empty / constant-returning bodies) — they are dead surface that looks live.
  • Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

What to do

  • Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
  • Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
  • Add a README to the 23 of 23 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
  • No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.

What to do

  • Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
  • Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure8.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

  • Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.

What to do

  • Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
M4 · Documentation accuracy6.0 / 10Adequate◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

  • README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists
  • README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests

What to do

  • Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists; README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

P10 · Library API & versioning2.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • 2309/2386 types (97%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
  • No <Version>/<VersionPrefix>/GitVersion/MinVer detected. A published library needs explicit semantic versioning so consumers can reason about breaking changes.

What to do

  • Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
  • Stamp a semantic version (csproj <Version> or GitVersion/MinVer) and follow semver for breaking changes.
P2 · Observability6.9 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether the code is diagnosable in production — structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks.

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: structured-logging frameworks (Serilog, NLog), OpenTelemetry, and health-check endpoint patterns. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Only 40/42 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.
  • Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem/Roslyn scan: CodeQL, Dependabot, secret-scanning, and BenchmarkDotNet presence in pipelines and projects. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • <NuGetAudit>false</NuGetAudit> in MSBuild suppresses NuGet's vulnerability audit project-wide. — Directory.Build.props:5

What to do

  • Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

  • Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.

What to do

  • Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
  • Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup0.0 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether disaster recovery is planned and codified — backups, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees — from IaC + container manifests + docs, never the live cloud.

Method: Filesystem scan: disaster recovery, backup, geo-recovery, RTO/RPO, persistence guarantees from IaC, manifests, and docs. Exhaustive, deterministic, never a live environment.

  • A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.

What to do

  • Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether EF Core schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than the un-evolvable EnsureCreated().

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage. Exhaustive per project, deterministic.

PF1 · Benchmark discipline6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the library protects its performance with benchmarks — a BenchmarkDotNet suite, an allocation MemoryDiagnoser, and (ideally) a CI gate. Presence is credited as a bonus, never a deduction.

Method: Repo + source scan: BenchmarkDotNet referenced (csproj/source), [Benchmark]/[MemoryDiagnoser] attribute counts, and a benchmark step in CI — scored as a bonus ladder (absence is neutral, never a deduction). Deterministic, presence detection.

  • 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.
PF2 · Allocation hygiene6.3 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether the code is written to minimise allocations so it doesn't pressure its host's GC — Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs and buffer writers. Reward-only: credited where present, never penalised where a simpler style is fine.

Method: Production-source scan: density (per 1k LoC) of allocation-aware APIs — Span/Memory, ArrayPool/ObjectPool, stackalloc, ValueTask, value-type structs, IBufferWriter, string.Create, SkipLocalsInit. Reward-only. Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

What to do

  • Raise allocation-aware density on the hot paths — currently 65 use(s) across 128,954 production line(s) (~0.5/1k). More Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc and ValueTask on the allocation-heavy paths climbs this toward 10.
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene9.3 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Performance — Whether asynchronous code keeps its host responsive — a library awaits with ConfigureAwait(false) (so it never captures and stalls the host's context) and avoids sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) that wastes threads and risks deadlock.

Method: Production-source scan: sync-over-async blocking (.Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult()) counted everywhere, and — for a library with ≥5 awaits — the share of awaits using ConfigureAwait(false). Deterministic, syntax/text detection.

S1 · Web-Security Posture3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Security — Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order and crypto hygiene (presence, not runtime).

Method: Roslyn plus filesystem scan: HSTS/security headers, secure cookies, input validation, middleware order, weak crypto (MD5/SHA1/DES); HTTPS-metadata context-aware. Deterministic.

  • MD5/SHA1 is broken for security purposes (collision-vulnerable). Use SHA-256+ for content integrity; for password storage, use a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt). — GuidFactories.cs:112
  • 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.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Replace MD5/SHA1 with SHA-256+ for content hashing; switch to a KDF (PBKDF2/Argon2/BCrypt) for password storage.
  • 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.
  • Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

X2 · Cancellation propagation9.9 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether async methods accept a CancellationToken so work can be cancelled (adoption curve).

Method: Roslyn scan: every async method (excluding framework-fixed overrides/Blazor handlers) checked for CancellationToken parameter presence. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

  • Only 590/595 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. (×5) — FilesEventPersistence.cs:273, FilesEventPersistence.cs:273, FilesEventPersistence.cs:273, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

X4 · Structured logging7.3 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. Deterministic.

  • Logging an interpolated string (`$"..."`) collapses the event to plain text — you lose the named, queryable properties structured logging exists for. Use a message template with placeholders: `LogInformation("User {UserId} did {Action}", id, action)`. (×13) — ReadModelPopulator.cs:241, ReadModelPopulator.cs:241, ReadModelPopulator.cs:241, …

What to do

  • Interpolated log message defeats structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types2.4 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether nullable reference types are enabled and not undermined by heavy `!` suppression.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

  • 2/42 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
  • ~0.1 `!` 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 `!`.

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

LensScoreRatingImpact
Code Health61%Adequate — gated by X5Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Architecture65%Adequate — gated by AX2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Maturity44%Weak — gated by D34, M2Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness43%Weak — gated by P5, P10Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security27%Weak — gated by D30, D36, C1, S1Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling78%StrongStrongest area.
Performance69%AdequateAcceptable, with room to improve.
Not included — 36 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

  • AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • 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
  • C2 Access Controls — Partial workspace load — the web/host project 'EventFlow.AspNetCore' present on disk did not load into the C# workspace (it failed to build/restore and was silently dropped), so its authorization signals were never scanned. The surviving documents carry no evidence for this control, but absence of evidence in an INCOMPLETE document set is not evidence the control is missing — the relevant middleware/attributes most plausibly live in the dropped project. This dimension is therefore Not-evidenced (excluded from the score) rather than asserting a confident negative. Restore/build that project (see diagnostics.md) so it loads and the dimension can be scored.
  • C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
  • C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
  • C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
  • D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
  • D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
  • DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
  • DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
  • ED1 Event-Driven — applicable but skipped (2/3 markers — below the conservative bar): a message-bus package; 43 CQRS handler(s)
  • 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); an append-only event-store seam (IEventStore/Append-of-events)
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
  • P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Issue — 10 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE · ×8
  • High CVE: System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0 — System.Formats.Asn1 5.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 10 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.Json 6.0.0 — System.Text.Json 6.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 7 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 — System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 4 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0 — Snappier 1.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11 — SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.11 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.6 — SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.1.6 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.Json 8.0.0 — System.Text.Json 8.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • High CVE: System.Text.Json 8.0.0 — System.Text.Json 8.0.0 (transitive) has a High advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D17 · Explicit Debt · NoWarnInCsproj · ×1
  • NoWarnInCsproj Source/EventFlow.SourceGenerators/EventFlow.SourceGenerators.csproj:4 — NU5128
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Critical CVE · ×1
  • Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.6.0 — System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.6.0 (transitive) has a Critical advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
Warning — 83 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt · ObsoleteWithCallers · ×18
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/HangfireJobRunner.cs:40 — [Obsolete] ExecuteAsync
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/HangfireJobRunner.cs:47 — [Obsolete] ExecuteAsync
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/IHangfireJobRunner.cs:31 — [Obsolete] ExecuteAsync
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/Integration/IHangfireJobRunner.cs:35 — [Obsolete] ExecuteAsync
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.MsSql/ReadStores/IMssqlReadModel.cs:28 — [Obsolete] IMssqlReadModel
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.MsSql/ReadStores/MssqlReadModel.cs:28 — [Obsolete] MssqlReadModel
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow.TestHelpers/Extensions/EventStoreExtensions.cs:34 — [Obsolete] LoadAggregateAsync
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/EventStores/IEventStore.cs:69 — [Obsolete] LoadAggregateAsync
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsAggregatesExtensions.cs:31 — [Obsolete] UseResolverAggregateRootFactory
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsAggregatesExtensions.cs:38 — [Obsolete] AddAggregateRoots
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsAggregatesExtensions.cs:47 — [Obsolete] AddAggregateRoots
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsAggregatesExtensions.cs:55 — [Obsolete] AddAggregateRoots
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsReadStoresExtensions.cs:58 — [Obsolete] UseReadStoreFor
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsSubscriberExtensions.cs:40 — [Obsolete] AddSubscriber
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Extensions/SpecificationExtensions.cs:36 — [Obsolete] ThrowDomainErrorIfNotStatisfied
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Snapshots/ISnapshotSerilizer.cs:27 — [Obsolete] ISnapshotSerilizer
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Snapshots/SnapshotSerilizer.cs:29 — [Obsolete] SnapshotSerilizer
  • ObsoleteWithCallers Source/EventFlow/Subscribers/IDomainEventPublisher.cs:38 — [Obsolete] PublishAsync
D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×14
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Tests/UnitTests/ExternalServices/Routing/RoutingServiceTests.cs:52 — // TODO: Assert list of legs — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping/Domain/Model/CargoModel/Entities/TransportLeg.cs:63 — // TODO: Do we really want this? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping/Domain/Model/CargoModel/Jobs/VerifyCargoItineraryJob.cs:69 — // TODO: Tell domain that a new itinerary could not be found — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.MsSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/EventStores/MsSqlEventStoreTests.cs:54 — /* TODO */ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.MsSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/ReadStores/MsSqlReadModelStoreTests.cs:66 — /* TODO */ — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.MsSql/Integrations/TableParameter.cs:70 — // TODO: remove — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.RabbitMQ/Integrations/RabbitMqConnectionFactory.cs:71 — // TODO: As soon as RabbitMQ supports async/await, set to false — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.RabbitMQ/Integrations/RabbitMqPublisher.cs:141 — // TODO: Evil or not evil? Do a Task.Run here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.TestHelpers/ProcessHelper.cs:94 — // TODO: Kill process and its children — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.Tests/UnitTests/Core/VersionedTypes/VersionedTypeDefinitionServiceTestSuite.cs:49 — // TODO: Redesign this, NUnit 3 enforces TestCaseSource(...) to reference static — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow.Tests/UnitTests/Core/VersionedTypes/VersionedTypeDefinitionServiceTestSuite.cs:73 — // TODO: Redesign this, NUnit 3 enforces TestCaseSource(...) to reference static — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventJsonSerializer.cs:58 — // TODO: Fix this — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventStoreBase.cs:135 — // TODO: Pass a real IAsyncEnumerable instead — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
  • TodoComment Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventStoreBase.cs:205 — // TODO: Pass a real IAsyncEnumerable instead — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: PROJ-123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
D19 · Documentation Quality · Low XML-doc coverage · ×12
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow/EventFlow.csproj — EventFlow(netstandard2.1): 1 % XML-doc coverage (13/971).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.Examples.Shipping Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.csproj — EventFlow.Examples.Shipping: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/192).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Queries.InMemory Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Queries.InMemory/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Queries.InMemory.csproj — EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Queries.InMemory: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/29).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.Sql(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.Sql/EventFlow.Sql.csproj — EventFlow.Sql(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/71).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.MsSql(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventFlow.MsSql.csproj — EventFlow.MsSql(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/83).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.PostgreSql(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.PostgreSql/EventFlow.PostgreSql.csproj — EventFlow.PostgreSql(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/76).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.MongoDB(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.MongoDB/EventFlow.MongoDB.csproj — EventFlow.MongoDB(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/73).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.RabbitMQ(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.RabbitMQ/EventFlow.RabbitMQ.csproj — EventFlow.RabbitMQ(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/49).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.Hangfire(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.Hangfire/EventFlow.Hangfire.csproj — EventFlow.Hangfire(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/22).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.SQLite(netstandard2.1) Source/EventFlow.SQLite/EventFlow.SQLite.csproj — EventFlow.SQLite(netstandard2.1): 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/37).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.EntityFramework(net8.0) Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/EventFlow.EntityFramework.csproj — EventFlow.EntityFramework(net8.0): 10 % XML-doc coverage (9/86).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: EventFlow.SourceGenerators Source/EventFlow.SourceGenerators/EventFlow.SourceGenerators.csproj — EventFlow.SourceGenerators: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
D10 · Test Quality · No assertions · ×8
  • No assertions: CreateEventHelper Source/EventFlow.Tests/IntegrationTests/BackwardCompatibilityTests.cs:79 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: OptimisticConcurrencyCheck Source/EventFlow.Tests/IntegrationTests/ReadStores/InMemoryReadModelStoreTests.cs:54 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: RegistrationDoesntCauseStackOverflow Source/EventFlow.Tests/IntegrationTests/ServiceProviderTests.cs:72 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: UnicodeIntegration Source/EventFlow.Tests/IntegrationTests/UnicodeTests.cs:108 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: NoEventsEmittedIsOk Source/EventFlow.TestHelpers/Suites/TestSuiteForEventStore.cs:269 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: TheSameSnapshotVersionCanBeSavedMultipleTimes Source/EventFlow.TestHelpers/Suites/TestSuiteForSnapshotStore.cs:184 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: SnapshotsCanBeSavedOutOfOrder Source/EventFlow.TestHelpers/Suites/TestSuiteForSnapshotStore.cs:197 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
  • No assertions: Simple Source/EventFlow.Examples.Shipping.Tests/IntegrationTests/Scenarios.cs:65 — Test method exercises code but verifies nothing — add an assertion.
D17 · Explicit Debt · BarePragmaDisable · ×6
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/EventStores/EntityFrameworkEventPersistence.cs:92 — #pragma warning disable Wintellect010
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/EventFlow.Hangfire.Tests/Integration/HangfireJobRunnerBackwardCompatibilityTests.cs:79 — #pragma warning disable CS0618
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/EventFlow.MsSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/ReadStores/ReadModels/MsSqlThingyReadModel.cs:32 — #pragma warning disable 618
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/EventFlow.MsSql/ReadStores/MssqlReadModelStore.cs:41 — #pragma warning disable 618
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/EventFlow.PostgreSql.Tests/IntegrationTests/ReadStores/ReadModels/PostgresSqlThingyReadModel.cs:32 — #pragma warning disable 618
  • BarePragmaDisable Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgrader.cs:29 — #pragma warning disable CS1998
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE · ×6
  • Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.10.3 — Azure.Identity 1.10.3 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 13 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Azure.Identity 1.10.3 — Azure.Identity 1.10.3 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 13 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.56.0 — Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.56.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 13 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1 — SharpCompress 0.30.1 (transitive) has a Medium advisory; affects 2 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.24.0 — Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.24.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
  • Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.24.0 — System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.24.0 (transitive) has a Medium advisory. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×2
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:145 — Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:145-153 | Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:163-171
  • Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:42 — Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:42-50 | Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:95-103
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cyclomatic 16) · ×1
  • AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cyclomatic 16) Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:105 — AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance has cyclomatic complexity 16 (threshold 15).
D10 · Test Quality · Skipped test · ×1
  • Skipped test: MultipleInstancesWithSamePathFail Source/EventFlow.Tests/UnitTests/EventStores/ConcurrentFilesEventPersistanceTests.cs:90 — Skipped — Ignore for now
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · EventUpgradeManager.UpgradeAsync (cognitive 26) · ×1
  • EventUpgradeManager.UpgradeAsync (cognitive 26) Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgradeManager.cs:89 — EventUpgradeManager.UpgradeAsync has cognitive complexity 26 (threshold 15).
D2 · Cognitive Complexity · AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cognitive 24) · ×1
  • AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance (cognitive 24) Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:105 — AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance has cognitive complexity 24 (threshold 15).
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Redundant/Confusing Overlap · ×1
  • Redundant/Confusing Overlap: The concrete class `AggregateRoot` and its interface `IAggregateRoot` both expose a `CommitAsync` method. While technically one is an explicit interface implementation and the other is a direct method, the naming and signature overlap creates confusion about which to use. More critically, `AggregateStore` also has a `StoreAsync` and `UpdateAsync` which handle persistence, but `AggregateRoot.CommitAsync` is the domain-level operation that triggers persistence. The inconsistency is that `AggregateRoot` exposes `CommitAsync` which returns `IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>`, whereas `AggregateStore` exposes `StoreAsync` which also returns `IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>`. This suggests a potential duplication of intent: one for domain-level commit and one for storage-level store. However, the bigger issue is the naming convention for loading: `AggregateStore.LoadAsync` vs `EventStoreBase.LoadEventsAsync` vs `EventStoreBase.LoadAggregateAsync`. — Ensure `AggregateRoot.CommitAsync` is clearly the domain operation, while `AggregateStore` methods are infrastructure. Consider renaming `AggregateStore.StoreAsync` to `PersistAsync` or similar to distinguish from `AggregateRoot.CommitAsync`. (signatures: Task<IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>> AggregateRoot<TAggregate, TIdentity>.CommitAsync(...) | Task<IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>> IAggregateRoot.CommitAsync(...))
D22 · Internal API Consistency · Overloaded Method with Different Return Types · ×1
  • Overloaded Method with Different Return Types: `AggregateStore` (and its interface `IAggregateStore`) has two `UpdateAsync` methods. One returns `IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>` and the other returns `IAggregateUpdateResult<TExecutionResult>`. While the signatures are distinct enough (different generic parameters), the name `UpdateAsync` is used for two very different operations: one that just persists events and one that executes a command and returns a result. This is a minor inconsistency in naming clarity. — (signatures: Task<IReadOnlyCollection<IDomainEvent>> AggregateStore.UpdateAsync<TAggregate, TIdentity>(...) | Task<IAggregateUpdateResult<TExecutionResult>> AggregateStore.UpdateAsync<TAggregate, TIdentity, TExecutionResult>(...))
D35 · Change Coupling · Change coupling · ×1
  • Change coupling: EventUpgrader.cs ↔ ReadModelPopulator.cs Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgrader.cs — `Source/EventFlow/EventStores/EventUpgrader.cs` and `Source/EventFlow/ReadStores/ReadModelPopulator.cs` change together 50% of the time (6 shared commits) with no explicit dependency — a hidden/logical coupling. If they belong together, co-locate them; if not, break the coupling.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · Unpinned build actions · ×1
  • Unpinned build actions — CI references GitHub Actions by a floating ref (@main / @tag) rather than a pinned commit SHA, weakening build integrity.
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (36 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs:108 — Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs:108-143 | Source/EventFlow.SQLite/EventStores/SQLiteEventPersistence.cs:110-143
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (32 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:132 — Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:132-155 | Source/EventFlow.MsSql/ReadStores/MssqlReadModelStore.cs:124-155
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (26 lines × 3) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (26 lines × 3) Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs:66 — Source/EventFlow.MsSql/EventStores/MsSqlEventPersistence.cs:66-90 | Source/EventFlow.PostgreSql/EventStores/PostgresSqlEventPersistence.cs:67-92 | Source/EventFlow.SQLite/EventStores/SQLiteEventPersistence.cs:67-92
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:71 — Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:71-83 | Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsEntityFrameworkExtensions.cs:122-134
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:164 — Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:164-174 | Source/EventFlow.MsSql/ReadStores/MssqlReadModelStore.cs:172-182
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:71 — Source/EventFlow.Sql/ReadModels/SqlReadModelStore.cs:71-80 | Source/EventFlow.MsSql/ReadStores/MssqlReadModelStore.cs:71-80
D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1
  • Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) Source/EventFlow.PostgreSql/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsPostgresSqlReadStoreExtensions.cs:39 — Source/EventFlow.PostgreSql/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsPostgresSqlReadStoreExtensions.cs:39-45 | Source/EventFlow.PostgreSql/Extensions/EventFlowOptionsPostgresSqlReadStoreExtensions.cs:54-60
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×1
  • Low cohesion: EntityDescriptor (LCOM4 4) Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework/ReadStores/EntityFrameworkReadModelStore.cs:277 — EntityDescriptor's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other — a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D8 · Code Coverage · Coverage not measured · ×1
  • Coverage not measured — analyzer environment — Coverage NOT MEASURED: the analyzer environment could not build/run the test suite (a target framework / SDK band or targeting pack the analyzer image doesn't carry). This is OUR limitation, not a defect in the repo — coverage is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero. We track the analyzer-image gap so it can be closed; in the meantime, commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces and real coverage will be read.
Recommendation — 16 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value · redundant comment · ×4
  • redundant comment Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework.Tests/EntityFrameworkTestExtensions.cs:1 — "The MIT License (MIT)" — delete - boilerplate license header restating the SPDX line
  • redundant comment Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework.Tests/Model/EfThingyGetQueryHandler.cs:11 — "subject to the following conditions:" — delete - duplicate of 'subject to the following conditions' below the header; one is sufficient
  • redundant comment Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework.Tests/MsSql/EfMsSqlSnapshotTests.cs:17 — "IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS" — delete - boilerplate license clause restating the implied grant
  • redundant comment Source/EventFlow.EntityFramework.Tests/MsSql/IncludeTests/PersonId.cs:4 — "https://github.com/eventflow/EventFlow" — delete - links to an external file; no WHY or constraint
D16 · Bus Factor · Off-boarding risk · ×1
  • Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1 — If anonymized user #1 becomes unavailable, 27 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner (largest: Source/EventFlow/Core/ReflectionHelper.cs). Pair on, review, or document these before any departure.
D19 · Documentation Quality · The README is a single page with no architecture or design docs; future branches such as EventFlow.Sql/MS SQL would require separate documentation. · ×1
  • The README is a single page with no architecture or design docs; future branches such as EventFlow.Sql/MS SQL would require separate documentation. README.md — Add an Architecture section describing the main components and how they interact, plus a Design section covering conventions, best practices, and migration patterns.
D21 · Naming Consistency · Test classes and related types in the UnicodeTests namespace use non-ASCII characters (ä, ö) in their names, which is inconsistent with the rest of the codebase that uses ASCII-only identifiers. · ×1
  • Test classes and related types in the UnicodeTests namespace use non-ASCII characters (ä, ö) in their names, which is inconsistent with the rest of the codebase that uses ASCII-only identifiers. — Rename to ASCII-safe equivalents, e.g., Aggregat, Identitat1, Pung1Event. (symbols: EventFlow.Tests.IntegrationTests.UnicodeTests.Aggregät, EventFlow.Tests.IntegrationTests.UnicodeTests.Identität1, EventFlow.Tests.IntegrationTests.UnicodeTests.Püng1Event)
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling · Bounded contexts not declared · ×1
  • Bounded contexts not declared — At 29493 LoC spread over 78 projects the codebase is both large and multi-module, so explicit bounded contexts are warranted. Declare architecture.contexts (≥2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D26 · Project Cohesion · Split EventFlow · ×1
  • Split EventFlow — A generic netstandard name that is huge and sprawls over 36 unrelated namespaces. Suggested: by namespace: EventSubscriptions, EventHandlers, EventFilters
D27 · Navigability · Scattered collaborators · ×1
  • Scattered collaborators — 84 % of calls cross a namespace and only 47 % of collaborators are co-located — group each feature's code into a vertical slice so a call's collaborators sit together.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities · Low CVE · ×1
  • Low CVE: Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.56.0 — Microsoft.Identity.Client 4.56.0 (transitive) has a Low advisory; affects 13 projects — one upgrade fixes all. https://github.com/advisories/[GHSA redacted]
D34 · Knowledge Freshness · Dormant codebase · ×1
  • Dormant codebase — 164 of 171 significant files have no living knowledge — the codebase as a whole is dormant, not 164 separate risks. Re-engage owners or document before change.
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No build provenance · ×1
  • No build provenance — No SLSA provenance generation or build attestation found in CI (e.g. slsa-github-generator, actions/attest-build-provenance).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No artifact signing · ×1
  • No artifact signing — No artifact signing found in CI (e.g. cosign / sigstore / gitsign).
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · No SBOM · ×1
  • No SBOM — No SBOM generation or committed SBOM found (e.g. syft / anchore/sbom-action / *.spdx.json / *.cdx.json).
D39 · IL Efficiency · IL efficiency · ×1
  • IL efficiency: 1 authored method(s) exceed the IL budget Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:109 — 1 of 1189 first-party methods compile to oversized IL bodies (> 250 instructions); worst: EventFlow.Aggregates.AggregateFactory/AggregateConstruction.CreateInstance @ Source/EventFlow/Aggregates/AggregateFactory.cs:109, 325 IL instructions; large bodies don't JIT-inline, which pulled this dimension to 10.0/10; splitting the hottest bodies recovers the most.
Info — 38 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene · Outdated · ×33
  • Outdated: JetBrains.Annotations — JetBrains.Annotations 2021.1.0 → 2026.2.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory — Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory 3.1.10 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection — Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 3.1.10 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging 3.1.10 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console — Microsoft.Extensions.Logging.Console 3.1.10 → 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub — Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub 1.0.0 → 10.0.300 available.
  • Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json — Newtonsoft.Json 13.0.1 → 13.0.4 available.
  • Outdated: System.Linq.Async — System.Linq.Async 6.0.1 → 7.0.1 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk — Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 16.6.1 → 18.7.0 available.
  • Outdated: nunit — nunit 3.13.2 → 4.6.1 available.
  • Outdated: NUnit3TestAdapter — NUnit3TestAdapter 3.17.0 → 6.2.0 available.
  • Outdated: AutoFixture.AutoMoq — AutoFixture.AutoMoq 4.17.0 → 4.18.1 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient — Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 5.2.0 → 7.0.2 available.
  • Outdated: Moq — Moq 4.16.1 → 4.20.72 available.
  • Outdated: Dapper — Dapper 2.1.35 → 2.1.79 available.
  • Outdated: dbup-core — dbup-core 5.0.37 → 6.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: System.ComponentModel.Annotations — System.ComponentModel.Annotations 4.7.0 → 5.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: dbup-sqlserver — dbup-sqlserver 5.0.40 → 7.2.0 available.
  • Outdated: dbup-postgresql — dbup-postgresql 4.1.0 → 7.0.1 available.
  • Outdated: Npgsql — Npgsql 4.1.14 → 10.0.3 available.
  • Outdated: MongoDB.Driver — MongoDB.Driver 3.0.0 → 3.9.0 available.
  • Outdated: RabbitMQ.Client — RabbitMQ.Client 6.5.0 → 7.2.1 available.
  • Outdated: Hangfire.Core — Hangfire.Core 1.8.10 → 1.8.23 available.
  • Outdated: Hangfire.InMemory — Hangfire.InMemory 0.7.0 → 1.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Hangfire.NetCore — Hangfire.NetCore 1.8.10 → 1.8.23 available.
  • + 8 more in this group — see findings.md.
D10 · Test Quality · Mock framework · ×5
  • Mock framework: Moq — EventFlow.TestHelpers(netstandard2.1) references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — EventFlow.TestHelpers(netcoreapp3.1) references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — EventFlow.TestHelpers(net6.0) references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — EventFlow.TestHelpers(net8.0) references Moq.
  • Mock framework: Moq — EventFlow.TestHelpers(net10.0) references Moq.

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 · Secrets (history)gitleaksgitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepsemgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetdotnet list EventFlow.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json16artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 · IaC & Container Securitytrivytrivy config --format json --quiet .0artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepsemgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.0
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivytrivy: 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
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosuredisclosure: 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 Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerosv-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

Run 019f157c-2a89-79c7-8573-b23e230f20cc · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Downloadable artifacts

Machine-readable and reproducible from this commit + frozen rubric — drop them straight into a contract appendix, a CRA dossier, or a downstream SCA / VEX tool.

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif⬇ Health changelog .md