Public report β€” .NET-Domain-Driven-Design-Template, published 19 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 19-06-2026 @ 22:09 UTC Public
Code Health Audit

Evgenirusev/.NET-Domain-Driven-Design-Template

63% Healthy

Small Β· 4,217 LoC Β· 21 projects Β· rebuild ~0.1 person-years Β· weakest lens: Domain Modelling (49%)

Grounded in facts. Every number here is computed, not narrated β€” reproducible, tool-backed, and traceable to a line of code. How to trust this β–Έ

56/59dimensions tool-verifieddeterministic Β· confidence 1.0 Β· 3 LLM-assisted, advisory
62findings with an exact file:lineof 101 β€” the remainder are repo-wide signals (a dimension-level measurement, not a single line); open any file:line and verify
59/101dimensions across the health lenses4217 LoC Β· 21 projects β€” wide & deep

Executive summary

Read through the Template lens: this is a template / kata / sample / demo β€” code meant to be read or copied, not operated. The ship-it and operate-it dimensions (CI/CD, observability, ADRs, architecture docs, deployment security) are N/A, and the colour bands on what remains are relaxed to what an example needs. Code correctness stays near-strict; the score is absolute and comparable across repos.

evgenirusev/.NET-Domain-Driven-Design-Template is in good overall health (63%), but at least one category below sits in Fair-or-worse territory β€” most items are improvements, and the weakest category contains work to schedule, not shelve.

It is strongest in Event-Driven (100%) β€” its messaging keeps components properly decoupled. Architecture (84%) is solid too.

The area that most needs attention is Domain Modelling (49%) β€” the domain model leaks and drifts, so business rules are harder to trust and change. Maturity (69%) is the next concern β€” onboarding is slow β€” key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.

Leadership focus, highest impact first: `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience); Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress… (Web-Security Posture); Define repositories per aggregate root (Repository granularity).

For scale: Small (~4,217 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.

It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.

Code composition β€” where the lines go
Business logic 5%Plumbing 67%Tests 1%Generated 27%
New since the last scan (20+)

20 finding(s) are new versus the previous scan (2026-06-18) β€” surfaced by this scheduled scan itself, no pull request required.

  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Application Common/Common.Application/Common.Application.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Infrastructure Common/Common.Infrastructure/Common.Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Web Common/Common.Web/Common.Web.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Domain Common/Common.Domain/Common.Domain.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Domain OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/OrderManagement.Domain.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Web OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Web/OrderManagement.Web.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Infrastructure OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Infrastructure/OrderManagement.Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Application OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Application/OrderManagement.Application.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: ProjectStartup ProjectStartup/ProjectStartup.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Domain ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/ProductCatalog.Domain.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Infrastructure ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Web ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Web/ProductCatalog.Web.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Application ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Application/ProductCatalog.Application.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Domain Statistics/Statistics.Domain/Statistics.Domain.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Infrastructure Statistics/Statistics.Infrastructure/Statistics.Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Web Statistics/Statistics.Web/Statistics.Web.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Application Statistics/Statistics.Application/Statistics.Application.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Identity.Infrastructure Identity/Identity.Infrastructure/Identity.Infrastructure.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Identity.Web Identity/Identity.Web/Identity.Web.csproj
  • D19 Β· Low XML-doc coverage: Identity.Application Identity/Identity.Application/Identity.Application.csproj

A full-fidelity diff against the previous run's complete recorded findings β€” line-move tolerant: a finding that only shifted line counts as unchanged, only genuinely new titles/files surface here.

Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled β€” €1,900–€9,500
Cost to rebuild€1,900–€9,500 (0.1 person-years (32–100 h), ~1 engineer)
Domain complexityHigh β€” harder problems cost more per line
Quality factor0.9Γ— (at 63% quality) β€” the last 20% of quality is most of the work
Size & shapeSmall Β· 39% boilerplate Β· 53% straight-line Β· 7% branching logic

This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€5,700 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 49% β€” the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.

How we model this: boilerplate at a scaffolding rate + logic × domain High (×1.6) β€” service/app, CQRS, domain model, event-driven integration × a 0.9× quality factor, at €60–95/h; indicative, ±~30%. Indicative only β€” 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
Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness β€” start with Enumeration.cs, InfrastructureConfiguration.cs, Product.cs.
+1.0 pts Β· Low effort Β· Knowledge Freshness
2
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
+1.7 pts Β· Medium effort Β· Outbound HTTP resilience
3
Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
+1.7 pts Β· Medium effort Β· Web-Security Posture

Diagnosis β€” what's actually going on

Value concentrated against a weak lens Β· Medium Β· Value at risk
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Domain Modelling at 49%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there β€” that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Evidence: valuation: Small, ~0.1 person-years rebuild (4,217 LoC) · weakest lens: Domain Modelling 49%
β†’ Direct remediation budget at Domain Modelling first β€” highest risk-reduction per euro on an asset this size.
Highest-leverage move Β· Medium Β· Leverage
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down. The rest can wait behind it.
Evidence: priority ranking: top of 5 ranked by impact/effort
β†’ Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
Improving trajectory Β· Info Β· Trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+15.2 pts/run over 3 runs) β€” whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Evidence: trajectory: +15.2 pts/run over 3 runs

Architecture β€” bounded-context dependency graph

Each box is a bounded context (its layer projects grouped, or a project count when large); arrows show dependencies between contexts. A shared kernel is where many arrows converge.

arch Application.Tests Application.Tests ProjectStartup ProjectStartup ctx:Identity Identity Application Β· Domain Β· Infrastructure Β· Web ProjectStartup->ctx:Identity ctx:OrderManagement OrderManagement Application Β· Domain Β· Infrastructure Β· Web ProjectStartup->ctx:OrderManagement ctx:ProductCatalog ProductCatalog Application Β· Domain Β· Infrastructure Β· Web ProjectStartup->ctx:ProductCatalog ctx:Statistics Statistics Application Β· Domain Β· Infrastructure Β· Web ProjectStartup->ctx:Statistics ctx:Common Common Application Β· Domain Β· Infrastructure Β· Web ctx:Identity->ctx:Common ctx:OrderManagement->ctx:Common ctx:ProductCatalog->ctx:Common ctx:Statistics->ctx:Common

At a glance β€” Code Health Β· 83% Β· Exemplary

At a glance β€” Architecture Β· 84% Β· Exemplary

At a glance β€” Maturity Β· 69% Β· Fair Β· gated by D34

At a glance β€” Readiness Β· 75% Β· Fair Β· gated by P7

At a glance β€” Security Β· 75% Β· Healthy

At a glance β€” Domain Modelling Β· 49% Β· Fair Β· gated by DM1, DM2, DM7

At a glance β€” Event-Driven Β· 100% Β· Exemplary

Roadmap

First, enhance outbound HTTP resilience by adding standard resilience handlers to HttpClient registrations to prevent dependency failures from taking the app down. Next, secure the web posture by requiring HTTPS metadata in production and ensuring secure headers and cookies are properly configured. Then, enforce repository granularity by defining repositories per aggregate root to protect invariants and reach child entities safely. After that, implement policy-based authorization to explicitly define and enforce access rules across the application. Finally, complete the migration to strongly-typed IDs to prevent transposed-argument bugs and ensure domain integrity.

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

Do thisHelpsEffortDimension
Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness β€” start with Enumeration.cs, InfrastructureConfiguration.cs, Product.cs.+1.0 ptsLowKnowledge Freshness
Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.+1.7 ptsMediumOutbound HTTP resilience
Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).+1.7 ptsMediumWeb-Security Posture
Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value β€” start with 20240622132132_InitialMigration.Designer.cs, ModelConstants.cs, Supplier.cs.+0.8 ptsLowComment Value
Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.+1.5 ptsMediumRepository granularity
Add policy-based authorization β€” name the access rules (AddAuthorization(o => o.AddPolicy(…))) and apply them via [Authorize(Policy = …)] or RequireAuthorization.+1.4 ptsMediumAccess Controls
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain β€” finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.+1.4 ptsMediumStrongly-typed ids
Name events in the past tense β€” they record facts that already happened.+1.4 ptsMediumEvent naming

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 β€” a quality signature. Of 31 files carrying findings, judged against the Template bar: 0% slop Β· 0% mixed Β· 100% near-clean.

FileScoreBandWorst signal
Common/Common.Infrastructure/Services/ImageService.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: ImageService
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/Factories/OrderFactory.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: OrderFactory
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Infrastructure/Repositories/OrderRepository.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: OrderRepository
ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Factories/ProductFactory.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: ProductFactory
ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure/Repositories/ProductRepository.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: ProductRepository
Statistics/Statistics.Infrastructure/Repositories/StatisticsRepository.cs8.2Near-cleanExplicit Debt: Dead code: StatisticsRepository
ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Product (LCOM4 5)
Common/Common.Domain/Models/Enumeration.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4)
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/Models/Orders/Order.cs8.5Near-cleanCohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: Order (LCOM4 4)
Common/Common.Application/Common.Application.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Application
Common/Common.Infrastructure/Common.Infrastructure.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Infrastructure
Common/Common.Web/Common.Web.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Web
Common/Common.Domain/Common.Domain.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Domain
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/OrderManagement.Domain.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Domain
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Web/OrderManagement.Web.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Web
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Infrastructure/OrderManagement.Infrastructure.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Infrastructure
OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Application/OrderManagement.Application.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Application
ProjectStartup/ProjectStartup.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ProjectStartup
ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/ProductCatalog.Domain.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Domain
ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure.csproj8.5Near-cleanDocumentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Infrastructure

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment β€” 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. 56 of 59 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.7 β€” 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: βœ“ Measured β€” a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled β€” an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory β€” 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): βœ“ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; β—‹ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean β€” 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 β€” absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled Β· advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample β€” advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked β€” 59 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D16D17D18D19D21D22D24D26D27D28D29D30D34D35AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX8AX9C2DM1DM2DM4DM5DM6DM7DM8ED1ED2ED3GD1IC1M1M3M4P1P7P8S1X1X2X3X4X5

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

How to trust any code-health report β€” three questions
  1. Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line β€” never an absolute scratch path. Here, 62 of 101 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals β€” 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 β€” Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled Β· advisory β€” not a narrative.
  3. Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score β€” and this report, byte for byte β€” 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) β€” re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

MethodBacksVersionEvaluator
Roslyn static analysisComplexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering5.3.0βœ“ deterministic
Native secret scannerHardcoded secrets / credentials1.0.0βœ“ deterministic
jscpdCode duplicationβ€”βœ“ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)Line & branch coverage10.0.301βœ“ deterministic
NuGet / dotnetOutdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies10.0.301βœ“ deterministic
git / LibGit2SharpChurn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history2.43.0 Β· 0.31.0βœ“ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkovSecrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR1.86.0 Β· 0.69.3βœ“ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming β€” sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurementQwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B◐ LLM Β· sampled Β· advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 019ee1ee-ebcb-714d-b694-dfa4bb16e4a1.

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

Run transparency β€” what happened this run

What ran differently this time β€” 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.

  • D31 IaC & Container Security β€” scanner not present in this environment β€” 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.
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) β€” scanner not present in this environment β€” 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 β€” scanner not present in this environment β€” The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing β€” scanner not present in this environment β€” 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 β€” scanner not present in this environment β€” 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 β€” scanner not present in this environment β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

  • D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” one class/IIFE β€” earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
  • D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) β€” it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED β€” its repetition is the tool's, not the team's β€” 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 β€” runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
  • D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic β€” 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 β€” a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
  • D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” it is never the team's dead code to delete.
  • D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
  • D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural β€” 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 β€” 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) β€” 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 β€” a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
  • D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D21, D22, D24, M4 (model: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score (documentation, ADR quality, naming, comment value, onboarding) β€” 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 Β· Cyclomatic Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md.

D2 Β· Cognitive Complexity10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md.

D3 Β· God Classes10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

0 god class(es) detected.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md.

D4 Β· Code Duplication10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

0 duplicated block group(s) detected.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md.

D5 Β· Coupling9.6 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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 β€” the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 9.6 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

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

Off the main sequence: ProductCatalog.Domain

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md Β· top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D6 Β· Cohesion (LCOM4)8.6 / 10Healthyβœ“ 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 β€” the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 8.6 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

3 of 25 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: Product (LCOM4 5) Β· Γ—3ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) β€” start with Enumeration.cs, Order.cs, Product.cs. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). β€” Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified β€” provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D9 Β· Test Distribution10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

3 test methods: 3 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.

Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d9_recommendation.md Β· top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D10 Β· Test Quality10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 3 tests.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d10_recommendation.md.

D11 Β· Test Reliability10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky).

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d11_recommendation.md.

D12 Β· Dependency Hygiene8.4 / 10Healthyβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 8.4 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

15 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 2 deprecated packages.

Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore Β· Γ—2
Outdated: FluentValidation Β· Γ—15

What to do

  1. Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
  2. Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). β€” Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified β€” provenance only; does not change the score.

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

D13 Β· Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

D14 Β· License Compliance10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

0 of 18 packages use a banned license.

Licenses scanned

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d14_recommendation.md Β· top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D15 Β· Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

D16 Β· Bus Factor6.9 / 10Fairβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 6.9 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

4 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (β‰₯90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is Common/Common.Infrastructure/InfrastructureConfiguration.cs, held by evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com.

Knowledge silo Β· Γ—4Common/Common.Infrastructure/InfrastructureConfiguration.cs
Off-boarding risk: evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com

What to do

  1. Resolve the 4 Knowledge silo finding(s) in Bus Factor β€” start with Enumeration.cs, InfrastructureConfiguration.cs, Order.cs. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D17 Β· Explicit Debt9.3 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 9.3 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Prevented

0 deducted debt markers + 7 dead symbols across 3224 LoC (0.3/KLoC) β†’ score 9.3.

Dead code: ImageService Β· Γ—6Common/Common.Infrastructure/Services/ImageService.cs:4

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

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

D18 Β· Solution Shape10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

21 projects, 176 .cs files, 3269 hand-written lines of code (3224 production / 45 test), plus 1611 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 85 inter-project edges.

Common.Application (Production)Common/Common.Application/Common.Application.csproj
Common.Infrastructure (Production)Common/Common.Infrastructure/Common.Infrastructure.csproj
Common.Web (Production)Common/Common.Web/Common.Web.csproj
Common.Domain (Production)Common/Common.Domain/Common.Domain.csproj
OrderManagement.Domain (Production)OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/OrderManagement.Domain.csproj

+ 16 more group(s) β€” more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d18_recommendation.md Β· top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

D19 Β· Documentation Quality / 10Critical◐ Sampled Β· 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective Critical / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

The project documentation is critically deficient. The sole README file is truncated, cutting off the 'Core Principles' section mid-sentence, which severely impacts readability. Furthermore, there are no architecture or design documents, and XML documentation coverage across all 18 projects is effectively 0%, indicating a complete lack of inline code documentation. The README also lacks critical setup instructions, such as how to build or run tests.

Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Application Β· Γ—20Common/Common.Application/Common.Application.csproj

What to do

  1. Resolve the 20 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality β€” start with Common.Application.csproj, Common.Domain.csproj, Common.Infrastructure.csproj. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (20 warning-level).

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

D21 Β· Naming Consistency / 10Fair◐ Sampled Β· advisory

What it measures: Whether names β€” types, methods, variables β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective Fair / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

4 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.

Inconsistent repository interface naming convention. Some repositories use a 'Domain' suffix in the interface name (e.g., IOrderDomainRepository), while others use a 'Query' suffix (e.g., IOrderQueryRepository). Additionally, there is a generic IQueryRepository<TEntity> and a concrete DataRepository, but the specific domain/query split is not applied consistently across all entities (e.g., Product has both Domain and Query interfaces, but the pattern is not uniform for all entities).
Inconsistent naming for constants/configuration classes. Some use the pattern '{Entity}ModelConstants' (e.g., OrderModelConstants, SupplierModelConstants), while others use a generic name like 'CommonModelConstants'.
Inconsistent naming for CQRS commands. Most commands are named with a specific action (Create, Update, Delete, Register, ChangePassword), but there is a generic 'OrderCommand' which is ambiguous compared to the specific 'CreateOrderCommand' and 'UpdateOrderCommand' also present.
Inconsistent naming for DTOs/Models. Some use the 'Model' suffix (ProductModel, OrderModel), while others use 'Response', 'Request', or 'ListItem'. This makes it difficult to distinguish between internal domain models, request DTOs, and response DTOs.

What to do

  1. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent repository interface naming convention. Some repositories… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  2. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for constants/configuration classes. Some use the… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
  3. Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for CQRS commands. Most commands are named with a… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

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

D22 Β· Internal API Consistency / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled Β· 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective Exemplary / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Verified

No public API surface exposed; nothing to be inconsistent.

No exposed public API

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

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

D24 Β· Comment Value / 10Poor◐ Sampled Β· advisory

What it measures: Whether comments are worth it β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective Poor / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

2 valuable / 14 redundant across 26 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.

redundant comment Β· Γ—3Identity/Identity.Infrastructure/Migrations/20240622132132_InitialMigration.Designer.cs:1

What to do

  1. Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value β€” start with 20240622132132_InitialMigration.Designer.cs, ModelConstants.cs, Supplier.cs. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).

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

D26 Β· Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

0 of 21 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

D27 Β· Navigability9.7 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

What it measures: How far you must trace to follow a call β€” 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) β€” not exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 9.7 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

90 % of calls cross a namespace and 5 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located β€” so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small β€” navigation cost is tolerated.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d27_recommendation.md.

D28 Β· Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

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

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

D29 Β· Static Analysis (SAST)10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings β€” 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 β€” exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

semgrep found no security issues.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md.

D30 Β· Dependency Vulnerabilities10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d30_recommendation.md.

D34 Β· Knowledge Freshness1.9 / 10Criticalβœ“ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still has living knowledge of each file, or it has been orphaned β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 1.9 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

5 of 6 significant source file(s) are orphaned β€” their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is Common/Common.Infrastructure/InfrastructureConfiguration.cs.

Orphaned knowledge Β· Γ—5Common/Common.Infrastructure/InfrastructureConfiguration.cs

What to do

  1. Resolve the 5 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness β€” start with Enumeration.cs, InfrastructureConfiguration.cs, Product.cs. β€” One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).

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

D35 Β· Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together β€” 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 β€” tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file β‰₯10 revisions, β‰₯5 shared commits, β‰₯50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only β€” 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: Documented β†’ Verified β†’ Prevented Β· effective 10.0 / 10 Β· rule-coverage 100% Β· ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

βœ“ On the Gold path β€” maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

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

AX1 Β· Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency β€” 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.

AX10 Β· Code composition4.6 / 10Fairβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” How the codebase splits by code ROLE β€” 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 β€” 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.

AX3 Β· Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” 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 Β· Architecture & structure10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” 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 Β· Interface segregation10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” Whether interfaces stay focused rather than fat β€” 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.

AX8 Β· Test isolation10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” Whether production projects stay free of references to test projects β€” 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 Β· CQS / query purity10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Architecture β€” Whether read (query) handlers stay side-effect-free β€” 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 β€” a query handler using neither convention is invisible, and mutation is a resolved persistence/publish CALL, not full dataflow.

C2 Β· Access Controls7.0 / 10Healthyβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Security β€” Whether access is authorized by default β€” [Authorize]/policies or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from handlers.

Method: Roslyn scan: [Authorize] usage and authorization policies, plus imperative throw-on-violation guard methods detected via syntax. Deterministic.

  • Authorization IS enforced here (via [Authorize]/guards) β€” this is NOT a claim that endpoints are unprotected. What's missing is NAMED policies (AddAuthorization/AddPolicy, RequireRole/RequireClaim, RequireAuthorization): the access rules are implicit rather than named and testable. Recommendation, not a defect β€” name the rules so they're reviewable.

What to do

  • Add policy-based authorization β€” name the access rules (AddAuthorization(o => o.AddPolicy(…))) and apply them via [Authorize(Policy = …)] or RequireAuthorization.
DM1 Β· Aggregate boundaries3.5 / 10Poorβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Domain Modelling β€” Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference β€” 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 β€” a root not using those names is invisible.

  • `Product` references the aggregate root `Supplier` directly (via `Suppliers`) β€” hold its `SupplierId` instead. β€” Product.cs:3
  • `Supplier` references the aggregate root `Product` directly (via `Products`) β€” hold its `ProductId` instead. β€” Supplier.cs:37

What to do

  • Reference other aggregates by their strongly-typed id, never by object reference, so each aggregate stays an independent consistency boundary.
DM2 Β· Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Poorβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Domain Modelling β€” How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int β€” adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically β€” non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

  • `Order.CustomerId` is a raw `Guid` β€” give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CustomerId { Guid Value }`). β€” Order.cs:17
  • `OrderItem.OrderId` is a raw `Guid` β€” give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrderId { Guid Value }`). β€” OrderItem.cs:12
  • `OrderItem.ProductId` is a raw `Guid` β€” give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ProductId { Guid Value }`). β€” OrderItem.cs:13

What to do

  • Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain β€” finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
DM4 Β· Rich vs anemic model8.6 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Domain Modelling β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” logic-bearing domain types outside the convention are invisible.

  • `Supplier` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) β€” the business logic lives in a service. β€” Supplier.cs:1

What to do

  • Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 Β· Encapsulated state10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Domain Modelling β€” 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.

DM6 Β· Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

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

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): domain-layer types scanned for infrastructure usage in member SIGNATURES and inside method/accessor BODIES β€” 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 β€” rename the layer and the check evaporates.

DM7 Β· Repository granularity2.7 / 10Poorβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Domain Modelling β€” Whether repositories are per aggregate root (not per child entity) so the root's invariants can't be bypassed.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): repository abstraction detection; repositories over non-aggregate-root entities flagged. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: repositories + aggregate roots by NAME convention; per-root repository rule checked within the set.

  • `OrderRepository` is a repository over `Order`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT β€” loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Order` through its owning aggregate instead. (×2) β€” OrderRepository.cs:4, OrderRepository.cs:4
  • `IOrderQueryRepository` is a repository over `Order`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT β€” loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Order` through its owning aggregate instead. β€” IOrderQueryRepository.cs:1
  • `ProductRepository` is a repository over `Product`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT β€” loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `Product` through its owning aggregate instead. (×2) β€” ProductRepository.cs:4, ProductRepository.cs:4
  • `StatisticsRepository` is a repository over `TotalStatistics`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT β€” loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `TotalStatistics` through its owning aggregate instead. (×2) β€” StatisticsRepository.cs:4, StatisticsRepository.cs:4
  • `IStatisticsQueryRepository` is a repository over `TotalStatistics`, which is an entity but not an aggregate root. Repositories should be per aggregate ROOT β€” loading/saving a child entity independently lets callers bypass the root's invariants. Access `TotalStatistics` through its owning aggregate instead. β€” IStatisticsQueryRepository.cs:1

What to do

  • Define repositories per aggregate root; reach child entities through their root so invariants can't be bypassed.
DM8 Β· Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Domain Modelling β€” Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted β€” 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.

ED1 Β· Handler temporal coupling10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Event-Driven β€” Whether event handlers stay asynchronous (no blocking remote HTTP/gRPC calls awaited inside a handler).

Method: Roslyn semantic scan (event-driven gated): event-handler bodies scanned for HTTP/gRPC invocations by resolved symbol type, not substring. Deterministic, semantic-resolved.

ED2 Β· Event/command shape10.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Event-Driven β€” Whether commands have a single handler (one owner of the decision) and fan-out is modelled with events.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): command-shaped messages identified by convention; handler count per command checked for the exactly-one rule. Deterministic, hard fact.

ED3 Β· Event naming7.0 / 10Healthyβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Event-Driven β€” Whether events are named in the past tense (a clarity nudge β€” low weight).

Method: Roslyn scan (event-driven gated): domain and integration events checked for past-tense naming (-ed/-en suffix or irregular set). Naming nudge, low-weight advisory.

  • `OrderAddedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred β€” name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. β€” OrderAddedEvent.cs:1
  • `ProductAddedEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred β€” name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. β€” ProductAddedEvent.cs:1

What to do

  • Name events in the past tense β€” they record facts that already happened.
GD1 Β· Unfinished & placeholder code10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

Other Β· Code Health β€” 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.

IC1 Β· Incompleteness & stubs10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

Other Β· Code Health β€” 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.

M1 Β· Documentation (README)7.3 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Maturity Β· Maturity β€” 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 'Testing' section to the root README β€” how to run the test suite.
  • Add a README to the 21 of 21 project(s) that lack one β€” worth up to 2 pts.
M3 Β· Folder & project structure6.0 / 10Healthyβœ“ Tool-verified

Maturity Β· Maturity β€” Whether the repo is organised deliberately β€” 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.

  • Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder β€” production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
  • Only 5/21 projects share a common root namespace β€” the code's module identity is inconsistent.

What to do

  • Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
  • Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
M4 Β· Documentation accuracy10.0 / 10Exemplary◐ Sampled Β· advisory

Maturity Β· Maturity β€” 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.

P1 Β· CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

Readiness Β· Readiness β€” 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.

P7 Β· Outbound HTTP resilience3.0 / 10Poorβœ“ Tool-verified

Readiness Β· Readiness β€” Whether outbound HTTP calls are wrapped in resilience (retry/timeout/circuit-breaker) so a failing dependency doesn't cascade.

Method: Roslyn scan: Polly resilience markers (Retry, CircuitBreaker, Timeout) on outbound HTTP invocations. Computed per type, deterministic.

  • The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade β€” add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.

What to do

  • Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
P8 Β· Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

Readiness Β· Readiness β€” 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.

S1 Β· Web-Security Posture6.5 / 10Fairβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Security β€” 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.

  • `RequireHttpsMetadata = false` allows the OIDC discovery doc to be fetched over plain HTTP. Safe for loopback-only fetches (Aspire / on-host); risky for any other path. β€” InfrastructureConfiguration.cs:38
  • No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found β€” defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (βˆ’2.0 on this card.)
  • No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (βˆ’1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)

What to do

  • Set RequireHttpsMetadata = true in prod (or pin MetadataAddress to a localhost URL the API can hit directly).
  • Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) β€” defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
  • Set secure cookie flags β€” CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
X1 Β· Async correctness7.0 / 10Healthyβœ“ Tool-verified

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

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

  • Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. β€” IdentityDbInitializer.cs:26

What to do

  • Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 Β· Cancellation propagation7.1 / 10Healthyβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Code Health β€” 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 24/46 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 β€” judge against your hosting model.
  • No CancellationToken parameter β€” work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×22) β€” EventDispatcher.cs:23, ImageService.cs:8, ImageService.cs:18, …

What to do

  • Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 Β· Exception handling10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

Other Β· Code Health β€” 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 Β· Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplaryβ—‹ Nothing flagged

Other Β· Code Health β€” 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.

X5 Β· Nullable reference types9.0 / 10Exemplaryβœ“ Tool-verified

Other Β· Code Health β€” 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.

  • ~1.3 `!` suppressions per 1k syntax nodes β€” 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 β€” 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 Health83%ExemplarySolid.
Architecture84%ExemplarySolid.
Maturity69%Fair β€” gated by D34Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor β€” resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness75%Fair β€” gated by P7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor β€” resolve it before relying on this lens.
Security75%HealthySolid.
Domain Modelling49%Fair β€” gated by DM1, DM2, DM7Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor β€” resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event-Driven100%ExemplaryStrongest area.
Not included β€” 42 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 β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC2 Forms & labels β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC3 Page structure β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC4 Keyboard semantics β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC5 ARIA correctness β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC6 Visual & motion safety β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AC7 A11y enforcement β€” No web markup found β€” accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
  • AX2 Stateful singletons β€” no singleton implementations detected
  • AX4 Dependency direction β€” not applicable to a CQRS architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
  • AX7 Slice cohesion β€” not applicable β€” not a vertical-slice architecture
  • C1 Data Protection β€” This is a dotnet-new template β€” at-rest encryption and key-vaulting are deferred to the application you build from it. Add ASP.NET Data Protection / column encryption + a key vault for your real data store when you productionise.
  • C3 Audit Trail β€” Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes β€” 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 β€” Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data β€” 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 β€” Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary β€” 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 β€” N/A β€” this repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo; a formal ADR log is deferred to a real application built from it.
  • D23 Boundary Type-Coupling β€” Bounded contexts not declared
  • D25 ADR Conformance β€” no ADRs to check
  • D31 IaC & Container Security β€” Not applicable
  • D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) β€” Not applicable
  • D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities β€” Not applicable
  • D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing β€” Not applicable
  • D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy β€” Not applicable
  • D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities β€” Not applicable
  • D7 Architectural Integrity β€” No checkable ADRs to assess
  • D8 Code Coverage β€” Coverage not measured
  • DM3 Integration-event coupling β€” no integration events detected β€” coupling check not applicable
  • ED4 Outbox / dual-write β€” no persistence writes or publishes observed in handlers β€” atomicity not assessable
  • ED5 Idempotency β€” no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected β€” idempotency check not applicable
  • ES1 Event Sourcing β€” not run β€” 0/3 markers found
  • M2 Architecture documentation β€” This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo β€” formal architecture documentation (ADRs, C4 diagrams) is deferred to a real application built from it, so its absence is not a defect here.
  • P12 CI test-gate honesty β€” no data
  • P2 Observability β€” This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo β€” code meant to be read or copied, not operated. Structured logging, tracing/metrics and health checks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
  • P3 Security & performance tooling β€” This repo declares itself a template / kata / sample / demo β€” code meant to be read or copied, not operated. SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarks are deferred to the application you build from it, so their absence is not a defect here. The dimension reactivates once the repo becomes a real app.
  • P4 Deployment & Rollback β€” not evidenced β€” no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
  • P5 DR & Backup β€” not evidenced β€” repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
  • P6 Release Hygiene β€” not evidenced β€” no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
  • P9 Domain vs controller coverage β€” no coverage report found on disk β€” run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
  • PF1 Benchmark discipline β€” Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos β€” a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF2 Allocation hygiene β€” Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos β€” a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • PF3 Async & latency hygiene β€” Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos β€” a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
  • X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing β€” no data
  • X7 Silent fallback defaults β€” no data

Appendix A β€” 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.

Warning β€” 42 finding(s)
D19 Β· Documentation Quality Β· Low XML-doc coverage Β· Γ—20
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Application Common/Common.Application/Common.Application.csproj β€” Common.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/49).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Infrastructure Common/Common.Infrastructure/Common.Infrastructure.csproj β€” Common.Infrastructure: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/19).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Web Common/Common.Web/Common.Web.csproj β€” Common.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/20).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Common.Domain Common/Common.Domain/Common.Domain.csproj β€” Common.Domain: 1 % XML-doc coverage (1/75).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Domain OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/OrderManagement.Domain.csproj β€” OrderManagement.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/41).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Web OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Web/OrderManagement.Web.csproj β€” OrderManagement.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/7).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Infrastructure OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Infrastructure/OrderManagement.Infrastructure.csproj β€” OrderManagement.Infrastructure: 5 % XML-doc coverage (1/20).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: OrderManagement.Application OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Application/OrderManagement.Application.csproj β€” OrderManagement.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/61).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ProjectStartup ProjectStartup/ProjectStartup.csproj β€” ProjectStartup: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Domain ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/ProductCatalog.Domain.csproj β€” ProductCatalog.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/78).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Infrastructure ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure.csproj β€” ProductCatalog.Infrastructure: 8 % XML-doc coverage (1/13).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Web ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Web/ProductCatalog.Web.csproj β€” ProductCatalog.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: ProductCatalog.Application ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Application/ProductCatalog.Application.csproj β€” ProductCatalog.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/41).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Domain Statistics/Statistics.Domain/Statistics.Domain.csproj β€” Statistics.Domain: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/12).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Infrastructure Statistics/Statistics.Infrastructure/Statistics.Infrastructure.csproj β€” Statistics.Infrastructure: 10 % XML-doc coverage (1/10).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Web Statistics/Statistics.Web/Statistics.Web.csproj β€” Statistics.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/3).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Statistics.Application Statistics/Statistics.Application/Statistics.Application.csproj β€” Statistics.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/9).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Identity.Infrastructure Identity/Identity.Infrastructure/Identity.Infrastructure.csproj β€” Identity.Infrastructure: 17 % XML-doc coverage (3/18).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Identity.Web Identity/Identity.Web/Identity.Web.csproj β€” Identity.Web: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/6).
  • Low XML-doc coverage: Identity.Application Identity/Identity.Application/Identity.Application.csproj β€” Identity.Application: 0 % XML-doc coverage (0/36).
D17 Β· Explicit Debt Β· Dead code Β· Γ—6
  • Dead code: ImageService Common/Common.Infrastructure/Services/ImageService.cs:4 β€” NamedType ImageService β€” no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: OrderFactory OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/Factories/OrderFactory.cs:1 β€” NamedType OrderFactory β€” no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: OrderRepository OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Infrastructure/Repositories/OrderRepository.cs:4 β€” NamedType OrderRepository β€” no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: ProductFactory ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Factories/ProductFactory.cs:1 β€” NamedType ProductFactory β€” no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: ProductRepository ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure/Repositories/ProductRepository.cs:4 β€” NamedType ProductRepository β€” no references found in solution.
  • Dead code: StatisticsRepository Statistics/Statistics.Infrastructure/Repositories/StatisticsRepository.cs:4 β€” NamedType StatisticsRepository β€” no references found in solution.
D34 Β· Knowledge Freshness Β· Orphaned knowledge Β· Γ—5
  • Orphaned knowledge Common/Common.Infrastructure/InfrastructureConfiguration.cs β€” No living knowledge remains for this file β€” its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge Common/Common.Domain/Models/ValueObject.cs β€” No living knowledge remains for this file β€” its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge Common/Common.Domain/Specification.cs β€” No living knowledge remains for this file β€” its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge Common/Common.Domain/Models/Enumeration.cs β€” No living knowledge remains for this file β€” its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
  • Orphaned knowledge ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs β€” No living knowledge remains for this file β€” its last meaningful change has decayed away; if it breaks, no one currently understands it. Schedule a read-through / add characterisation tests before it bites.
D16 Β· Bus Factor Β· Knowledge silo Β· Γ—4
  • Knowledge silo Common/Common.Infrastructure/InfrastructureConfiguration.cs β€” 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com β€” if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo Common/Common.Domain/Models/Enumeration.cs β€” 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com β€” if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs β€” 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com β€” if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
  • Knowledge silo OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/Models/Orders/Order.cs β€” 100 % of this file's living knowledge is held by evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com β€” if they are unavailable, no one else has recently worked it.
D6 Β· Cohesion (LCOM4) Β· Low cohesion Β· Γ—3
  • Low cohesion: Product (LCOM4 5) ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Products/Product.cs:1 β€” Product's methods form 5 groups that share no state and don't call each other β€” a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Enumeration (LCOM4 4) Common/Common.Domain/Models/Enumeration.cs:4 β€” Enumeration's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other β€” a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
  • Low cohesion: Order (LCOM4 4) OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/Models/Orders/Order.cs:1 β€” Order's methods form 4 groups that share no state and don't call each other β€” a sign it may have several responsibilities. Review whether it splits into focused classes.
D12 Β· Dependency Hygiene Β· Deprecated Β· Γ—2
  • Deprecated: FluentValidation.AspNetCore β€” FluentValidation.AspNetCore 11.3.1 β€” Legacy
  • Deprecated: xunit β€” xunit 2.9.3 β€” Legacy xunit.v3 >= 0.0.0
D5 Β· Coupling Β· Off the main sequence Β· Γ—1
  • Off the main sequence: ProductCatalog.Domain β€” ProductCatalog.Domain: abstractness 0.11, instability 0.17, distance 0.72 β€” zone of pain β€” concrete and heavily depended-on, so it's rigid to change.
D8 Β· Code Coverage Β· Coverage not measured Β· Γ—1
  • Coverage not measured β€” The test suite couldn't be built/run in-image and no coverage report is committed, so line coverage was not measured β€” and it is EXCLUDED from the score rather than scored on a LoC-ratio proxy. Commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI already produces (anywhere in the repo), or make the suite runnable in-image, and real coverage will be measured.
Recommendation β€” 17 finding(s)
D24 Β· Comment Value Β· redundant comment Β· Γ—3
  • redundant comment Identity/Identity.Infrastructure/Migrations/20240622132132_InitialMigration.Designer.cs:1 β€” "<auto-generated />" β€” Remove. This is a standard header that adds no value and clutters the file.
  • redundant comment OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/Models/Orders/ModelConstants.cs:17 β€” "Assuming a maximum of 10 digits for the price amount" β€” Remove or move to a code attribute/annotation if the limit is a business rule, otherwise it's just restating the type constraint.
  • redundant comment ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/Supplier.cs:51 β€” "Add your email validation logic here" β€” Remove. This is a placeholder comment that should be deleted when the code is implemented.
D16 Β· Bus Factor Β· Off-boarding risk Β· Γ—1
  • Off-boarding risk: evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com β€” If evgeni.n.rusev@gmail.com becomes unavailable, 4 significant file(s) lose their only recent owner β€” the largest single-person knowledge concentration (weighted toward the domain core). Pair, review, or document these before any departure.
D21 Β· Naming Consistency Β· Inconsistent repository interface naming convention. Some repositories use a 'Domain' suffix in the interface name (e.g., IOrderDomainRepository), while others use a 'Query' suffix (e.g., IOrderQueryRepository). Additionally, there is a generic IQueryRepository<TEntity> and a concrete DataRepository, but the specific domain/query split is not applied consistently across all entities (e.g., Product has both Domain and Query interfaces, but the pattern is not uniform for all entities). Β· Γ—1
  • Inconsistent repository interface naming convention. Some repositories use a 'Domain' suffix in the interface name (e.g., IOrderDomainRepository), while others use a 'Query' suffix (e.g., IOrderQueryRepository). Additionally, there is a generic IQueryRepository<TEntity> and a concrete DataRepository, but the specific domain/query split is not applied consistently across all entities (e.g., Product has both Domain and Query interfaces, but the pattern is not uniform for all entities). β€” Adopt a consistent naming convention for repository interfaces, such as I{Entity}Repository for all, or strictly separate I{Entity}QueryRepository and I{Entity}CommandRepository if using CQRS. (symbols: IOrderDomainRepository, IOrderQueryRepository, IProductDomainRepository, IProductQueryRepository, IFactory<TEntity>, IQueryRepository<TEntity>, DataRepository<TDbContext, TEntity>)
D21 Β· Naming Consistency Β· Inconsistent naming for constants/configuration classes. Some use the pattern '{Entity}ModelConstants' (e.g., OrderModelConstants, SupplierModelConstants), while others use a generic name like 'CommonModelConstants'. Β· Γ—1
  • Inconsistent naming for constants/configuration classes. Some use the pattern '{Entity}ModelConstants' (e.g., OrderModelConstants, SupplierModelConstants), while others use a generic name like 'CommonModelConstants'. β€” Rename 'CommonModelConstants' to a more specific name or align all constant classes with the '{Entity}ModelConstants' pattern if they represent specific entity configurations. (symbols: OrderModelConstants.OrderItem, SupplierModelConstants.Address, CommonModelConstants.Common)
D21 Β· Naming Consistency Β· Inconsistent naming for CQRS commands. Most commands are named with a specific action (Create, Update, Delete, Register, ChangePassword), but there is a generic 'OrderCommand' which is ambiguous compared to the specific 'CreateOrderCommand' and 'UpdateOrderCommand' also present. Β· Γ—1
  • Inconsistent naming for CQRS commands. Most commands are named with a specific action (Create, Update, Delete, Register, ChangePassword), but there is a generic 'OrderCommand' which is ambiguous compared to the specific 'CreateOrderCommand' and 'UpdateOrderCommand' also present. β€” Rename 'OrderCommand' to a more specific action (e.g., 'GetOrderCommand' or 'ProcessOrderCommand') or remove if redundant. (symbols: CreateProductCommand, UpdateProductCommand, CreateOrderCommand, UpdateOrderCommand, DeleteProductCommand, RegisterUserCommand, ChangePasswordCommand, OrderCommand)
D21 Β· Naming Consistency Β· Inconsistent naming for DTOs/Models. Some use the 'Model' suffix (ProductModel, OrderModel), while others use 'Response', 'Request', or 'ListItem'. This makes it difficult to distinguish between internal domain models, request DTOs, and response DTOs. Β· Γ—1
  • Inconsistent naming for DTOs/Models. Some use the 'Model' suffix (ProductModel, OrderModel), while others use 'Response', 'Request', or 'ListItem'. This makes it difficult to distinguish between internal domain models, request DTOs, and response DTOs. β€” Standardize DTO naming: use 'Model' for internal domain representations, 'Request' for inputs, and 'Response' for outputs, or consistently use 'Dto' suffix across all. (symbols: ProductModel, OrderModel, SupplierModel, OrderListItem, OrderResponse, ProductResponse, UserRequestModel, ImageRequestModel, OrderDetailsQuery)
D23 Β· Boundary Type-Coupling Β· Bounded contexts not declared Β· Γ—1
  • Bounded contexts not declared β€” The codebase contains 21 projects, indicating a multi-module architecture where implicit boundaries should be explicitly defined to manage coupling. Declare architecture.contexts (β‰₯2) in config to assess cross-boundary type coupling.
D25 Β· ADR Conformance Β· no ADRs to check Β· Γ—1
  • no ADRs to check β€” No ADRs found, so conformance can't be assessed.
D31 Β· IaC & Container Security Β· Not applicable Β· Γ—1
  • Not applicable β€” No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
D32 Β· Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) Β· Not applicable Β· Γ—1
  • Not applicable β€” No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) β€” no data-compliance surface to assess.
D33 Β· JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities Β· Not applicable Β· Γ—1
  • Not applicable β€” 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.
D36 Β· Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Β· Not applicable Β· Γ—1
  • Not applicable β€” The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact β€” no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
D37 Β· Vulnerability-disclosure Policy Β· Not applicable Β· Γ—1
  • Not applicable β€” 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 Β· OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities Β· Not applicable Β· Γ—1
  • Not applicable β€” No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
D7 Β· Architectural Integrity Β· No checkable ADRs to assess Β· Γ—1
  • No checkable ADRs to assess β€” No architecture decision records were found and the project graph is acyclic, so architectural integrity could not be assessed. Add ADRs (with `enforcement: analyzer|test`) to make the architecture's rules checkable.
Info β€” 42 finding(s)
D12 Β· Dependency Hygiene Β· Outdated Β· Γ—15
  • Outdated: FluentValidation β€” FluentValidation 11.12.0 β†’ 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions β€” Microsoft.Extensions.Options.ConfigurationExtensions 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer β€” Microsoft.AspNetCore.Authentication.JwtBearer 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore β€” Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity.EntityFrameworkCore 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer β€” Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.SqlServer 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: SixLabors.ImageSharp β€” SixLabors.ImageSharp 3.1.12 β†’ 4.0.0 available.
  • Outdated: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore β€” Swashbuckle.AspNetCore 10.1.7 β†’ 10.2.2 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation β€” FluentValidation 11.12.0 β†’ 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design β€” Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools β€” Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection β€” Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection 10.0.8 β†’ 10.0.9 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation β€” FluentValidation 11.12.0 β†’ 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: FluentValidation β€” FluentValidation 11.12.0 β†’ 12.1.1 available.
  • Outdated: FluentAssertions β€” FluentAssertions 7.2.2 β†’ 8.10.0 available.
  • Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk β€” Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk 18.5.1 β†’ 18.6.0 available.
D14 Β· License Compliance Β· Licenses scanned Β· Γ—1
  • Licenses scanned β€” 18 packages scanned; 2 distinct SPDX licenses.
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Common.Application (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Common.Application (Production) Common/Common.Application/Common.Application.csproj β€” 15 .cs files, 265 LoC (220 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Common.Infrastructure (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Common.Infrastructure (Production) Common/Common.Infrastructure/Common.Infrastructure.csproj β€” 10 .cs files, 376 LoC (306 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Common.Web (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Common.Web (Production) Common/Common.Web/Common.Web.csproj β€” 9 .cs files, 280 LoC (229 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Common.Domain (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Common.Domain (Production) Common/Common.Domain/Common.Domain.csproj β€” 18 .cs files, 571 LoC (448 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· OrderManagement.Domain (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • OrderManagement.Domain (Production) OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Domain/OrderManagement.Domain.csproj β€” 8 .cs files, 218 LoC (184 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· OrderManagement.Web (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • OrderManagement.Web (Production) OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Web/OrderManagement.Web.csproj β€” 2 .cs files, 34 LoC (29 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· OrderManagement.Infrastructure (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • OrderManagement.Infrastructure (Production) OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Infrastructure/OrderManagement.Infrastructure.csproj β€” 11 .cs files, 495 LoC (396 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· OrderManagement.Application (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • OrderManagement.Application (Production) OrderManagement/OrderManagement.Application/OrderManagement.Application.csproj β€” 17 .cs files, 290 LoC (237 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· ProjectStartup (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • ProjectStartup (Production) ProjectStartup/ProjectStartup.csproj β€” 2 .cs files, 94 LoC (80 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· ProductCatalog.Domain (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • ProductCatalog.Domain (Production) ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/ProductCatalog.Domain.csproj β€” 13 .cs files, 430 LoC (361 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· ProductCatalog.Infrastructure (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • ProductCatalog.Infrastructure (Production) ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure/ProductCatalog.Infrastructure.csproj β€” 9 .cs files, 741 LoC (583 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· ProductCatalog.Web (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • ProductCatalog.Web (Production) ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Web/ProductCatalog.Web.csproj β€” 2 .cs files, 30 LoC (26 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· ProductCatalog.Application (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • ProductCatalog.Application (Production) ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Application/ProductCatalog.Application.csproj β€” 13 .cs files, 229 LoC (191 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Statistics.Domain (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Statistics.Domain (Production) Statistics/Statistics.Domain/Statistics.Domain.csproj β€” 4 .cs files, 50 LoC (43 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Statistics.Infrastructure (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Statistics.Infrastructure (Production) Statistics/Statistics.Infrastructure/Statistics.Infrastructure.csproj β€” 8 .cs files, 222 LoC (177 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Statistics.Web (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Statistics.Web (Production) Statistics/Statistics.Web/Statistics.Web.csproj β€” 2 .cs files, 12 LoC (11 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Statistics.Application (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Statistics.Application (Production) Statistics/Statistics.Application/Statistics.Application.csproj β€” 4 .cs files, 37 LoC (31 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Identity.Infrastructure (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Identity.Infrastructure (Production) Identity/Identity.Infrastructure/Identity.Infrastructure.csproj β€” 14 .cs files, 1343 LoC (1056 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Identity.Web (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Identity.Web (Production) Identity/Identity.Web/Identity.Web.csproj β€” 2 .cs files, 33 LoC (29 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· Identity.Application (Production) Β· Γ—1
  • Identity.Application (Production) Identity/Identity.Application/Identity.Application.csproj β€” 11 .cs files, 180 LoC (151 significant)
D18 Β· Solution Shape Β· ProductCatalog.Application.Tests (Test) Β· Γ—1
  • ProductCatalog.Application.Tests (Test) tests/ProductCatalog.Application.Tests/ProductCatalog.Application.Tests.csproj β€” 2 .cs files, 58 LoC (44 significant)
D22 Β· Internal API Consistency Β· No exposed public API Β· Γ—1
  • No exposed public API β€” No intentionally-exposed types (IsPackable or .Contracts) to evaluate.
D9 Β· Test Distribution Β· Unit tests Β· Γ—1
  • Unit tests β€” 3 unit test method(s).
D9 Β· Test Distribution Β· Integration tests Β· Γ—1
  • Integration tests β€” 0 integration test method(s).
D9 Β· Test Distribution Β· BDD tests Β· Γ—1
  • BDD tests β€” 0 BDD test method(s).
D9 Β· Test Distribution Β· E2E tests Β· Γ—1
  • E2E tests β€” 0 end-to-end test method(s).

Appendix B β€” Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension β€” 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 β€” 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 β€” kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

DimensionToolVersionCommandFindingsRaw output
D28 Β· Secrets (history)gitleaksβ€”gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source .0artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D29 Β· Static Analysis (SAST)semgrepβ€”semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off .0β€”
D30 Β· Dependency Vulnerabilitiesdotnetβ€”dotnet list ASP.NET-Domain-Driven-Design-Template.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json0artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json
D31 Β· IaC & Container Securitytrivyβ€”trivy: not applicable β€” No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.0β€”
D32 Β· Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)semgrepβ€”semgrep: not applicable β€” No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) β€” no data-compliance surface to assess.0β€”
D33 Β· JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilitiestrivyβ€”trivy: not applicable β€” 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.0β€”
D36 Β· Supply-chain Provenance & Signingprovenanceβ€”provenance: not applicable β€” The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact β€” no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).0β€”
D37 Β· Vulnerability-disclosure Policydisclosureβ€”disclosure: not applicable β€” 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.0β€”
D38 Β· OSV Dependency Vulnerabilitiesosv-scannerβ€”osv-scanner: not applicable β€” No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.0β€”

Run 019ee1ee-ebcb-714d-b694-dfa4bb16e4a1 Β· every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Appendix C β€” Personal-data map

Every field, property and record parameter whose name is conventional personal data β€” 12 field(s) across 3 categories, each with an exact repo-relative file:line. This is the data inventory a compliance review starts from β€” right-to-erasure, retention, minimisation. Detected by name with a deliberately specific classifier (the same one the GDPR dimensions use, so CardDefinition or FileName don't trip); informational β€” it feeds no score.

Email β€” 6 field(s)
  • Identity.MinEmailLength Common/Common.Domain/Models/CommonModelConstants.cs:14
  • Identity.MaxEmailLength Common/Common.Domain/Models/CommonModelConstants.cs:15
  • UserRequestModel.Email Identity/Identity.Application/Commands/UserRequestModel.cs:9
  • Supplier.ContactEmail ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/Supplier.cs:34
  • Common.MinEmailLength ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/SupplierModelConstants.cs:9
  • Common.MaxEmailLength ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/SupplierModelConstants.cs:10
Address β€” 3 field(s)
  • Address.PostalCode ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/Address.cs:16
  • Address.MinPostalCodeLength ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/SupplierModelConstants.cs:19
  • Address.MaxPostalCodeLength ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/SupplierModelConstants.cs:20
Phone β€” 3 field(s)
  • Supplier.ContactPhoneNumber ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/Supplier.cs:35
  • Common.MinPhoneNumberLength ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/SupplierModelConstants.cs:11
  • Common.MaxPhoneNumberLength ProductCatalog/ProductCatalog.Domain/Models/Suppliers/SupplierModelConstants.cs:12

Downloadable artifacts

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

⬇ Findings, MITRE CWE-tagged .sarif