Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
fsbolero/Bolero carries serious gaps (50%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Architecture (96%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Code Health (85%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Security (36%) — exposure to security and compliance incidents is elevated. Maturity (51%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 14 High finding(s) (Static Analysis (SAST)); Record significant decisions one document per decision (Architecture documentation); 'Testing' section to the root README (Documentation (README)).
For scale: Hobby (~155 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (96%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
85%
Strong
Architecture
96% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
51%
Adequate · gated by D34, M2
Readiness
60%
Adequate · gated by P3
Security
36%
Weak · gated by D29, D36
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Security 36% · 47% weightMaturity 51% · 26% weightReadiness 60% · 14% weightCode Health 85% · 8% weightArchitecture 96% · 4% weight
Raise Security 36 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 50 → ~61.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 2%Plumbing 3%Tests 95%
New since the last scan (36+)
- D3 · TooManyMethods: attr src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: on src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: async src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: task src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Bolero.Html/Html.fs src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Bolero.Html/Builders.fs src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D3 · FileTooLong: Bolero/Router.fs src/Bolero/Router.fs
- D3 · TooManyMethods: RouterImpl src/Bolero/Router.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Bolero/Router.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 8) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
- D8 · Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish.yml
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €950–€4,800
| Cost to rebuild | €950–€4,800 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 50% quality) |
| Size & shape | Hobby · 41% boilerplate · 16% straight-line · 43% branching logic |
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Html.fs, Router.fs, Builders.fs.
2
Resolve the 14 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (11), publish.yml (3).
3
Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs (3).
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Resolve the 14 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (11), publish.yml (3). The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Ugly
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 14 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by resolving the 14 high-priority static analysis findings, specifically in build.yml and publish.yml. Next, document significant architectural decisions in a dedicated ADR directory to capture context and consequences. Then, update the root README to include a testing section and correct the documentation to reflect the absence of Bolero.Templates project templates. Finally, address the three largest orphaned files in the knowledge freshness dimension to ensure codebase relevance.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Html.fs, Router.fs, Builders.fs. | +5.7 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 14 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (11), publish.yml (3). | +10.3 pts | Medium | Static Analysis (SAST) |
| Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs (3). | +5.1 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. | +3.9 pts | Low | Supply-chain Provenance & Signing |
| Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. | +3.9 pts | Low | Supply-chain Provenance & Signing |
| Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. | +3.9 pts | Low | Supply-chain Provenance & Signing |
| Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form). | +6.9 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +5.7 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| .github/workflows/build.yml | 4.4 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/publish.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs | 7.0 | Mixed | God Classes: FileTooLong: Bolero.Html/Builders.fs |
| src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs | 7.1 | Mixed | God Classes: TooManyMethods: attr |
| src/Bolero/Router.fs | 7.4 | Mixed | God Classes: FileTooLong: Bolero/Router.fs |
| src/Bolero.Build/Bolero.Build.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: Bolero.Build |
| src/Bolero.Build/BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs | 9.1 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The 'Contributing' section links to an issue tracker but does not mention how to set up local development or run tests. |
Methodology & how to trust this report
Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 28 of 31 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 0.4 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 31 dimensions across the health lenses
D3D4D5D13D16D17D19D21D24D26D28D29D34D35D36AX10AX3AX4AX5GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P3P4P6X1X3
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 43 of 54 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
A clean run — every tool resolved and ran, and every applicable dimension was measured at full confidence. No scanner was unavailable, no analysis timed out or crashed, and nothing fell back to a degraded estimate.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes
8 god class(es) detected.
TooManyMethods: attr src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:872
FileTooLong: Bolero.Html/Html.fs src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:0
What to do
- Resolve the 5 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Html.fs (4), Router.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with Html.fs, Builders.fs, Router.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
13 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:357
Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:204
Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:307
Duplicated block (8 lines × 8)src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:65
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:581
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
1 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
What to do
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
3 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/Bolero/Components.fs.
Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
4 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 155 LoC (1.9/KLoC) → score 6.3.
What to do
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
Bolero's single README is a solid one-page overview of the project and its features (HTML functions, templating, Elmish integration, routing, remoting, F# optimizations) plus a brief getting-started guide. It links to build/nuget badges and an external docs site, but it lacks architecture documentation for the Bolero tooling itself and no XML doc coverage despite Bolero.Build being referenced in the body.
Low XML-doc coverage: Bolero.Buildsrc/Bolero.Build/Bolero.Build.csproj
The 'Contributing' section links to an issue tracker but does not mention how to set up local development or run tests.README.md
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with Bolero.Build.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 The 'Contributing' section links to an issue tracker but does not… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 20 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
0 valuable / 3 redundant across 13 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.
redundant comment src/Bolero.Build/BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs:1
What to do
- Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 1 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
14 finding(s): 0 critical, 14 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:18
What to do
- Resolve the 14 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with build.yml (11), publish.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
21 of 24 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs.
Largest orphaned file src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
Dormant codebase
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Largest orphaned file finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with Html.fs, Router.fs, Builders.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
Unpinned build actions
No build provenance
No artifact signing
No SBOM
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No artifact signing finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX10 · Code composition
What to do
- The domain core is a small share of production code — check that business logic isn't leaking into the application/infrastructure layers (a thin domain is the anemic-domain smell).
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX4 · Dependency direction
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- Bolero.Templates project templates are not present
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: Bolero.Templates project templates are not present.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) as a CI step.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: `semgrep --config=auto` plus gitleaks for committed secrets (F# is not a CodeQL language and has no language-specific SAST engine) — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 85% | Strong | Solid. |
| Architecture | 96% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 51% | Adequate — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 60% | Adequate — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 36% | Weak — gated by D29, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 65 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX6 Interface segregation — no public interfaces
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.fs) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~2872 lines of test source are present (.fs) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's projects are MSBuild/NuGet projects, whose package licenses are exactly what this dimension reads, but no license could be resolved for them (the .NET license collector did not run, or restore failed). A gap in the analysis run, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .fs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a C#/VB .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which the C#/VB workspace does not load — the projects that loaded are an immaterial minority, so solution shape was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.fs) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 7835 LoC in a single project the codebase is trivially small despite the absence of declared bounded contexts.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is mostly .fs, which this pass does not read, so cohesion was not assessed for this repository. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.fs) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 31 value object(s); 1 domain event(s)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (Cobertura — `dotnet test --collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` with a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Reported, not scored — this card publishes what it found rather than grading it. Its content is the findings and the key metric above.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 14 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:18
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:28
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:47
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:54
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:61
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:73
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:78
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:94
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:97
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/build.yml:113
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish.yml:12
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish.yml:17
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/publish.yml:25
Warning — 24 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: attr src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:872
- TooManyMethods: on src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:1452
- TooManyMethods: async src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:1938
- TooManyMethods: task src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:2315
- TooManyMethods: RouterImpl src/Bolero/Router.fs:197
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: Bolero.Html/Html.fs src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs:0
- FileTooLong: Bolero.Html/Builders.fs src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:0
- FileTooLong: Bolero/Router.fs src/Bolero/Router.fs:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:357
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) src/Bolero/Router.fs:700
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:204
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:465
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:307
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:836
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: Bolero.Build src/Bolero.Build/Bolero.Build.csproj
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Unpinned build actions
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 8) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:65
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:581
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 6) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:178
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 3) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:257
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 8) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:99
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 6) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:126
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs:160
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — analyzer environment
Recommendation — 14 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment src/Bolero.Build/BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs:1
- redundant comment src/Bolero.Build/BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs:3
- redundant comment src/Bolero.Build/BoleroStripFSharpMetadata.cs:7
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Largest orphaned file src/Bolero.Html/Html.fs
- Largest orphaned file src/Bolero/Router.fs
- Largest orphaned file src/Bolero.Html/Builders.fs
D11 · Test Reliability
- Test reliability not included
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- complexity unreadable for .fs — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D19 · Documentation Quality
- The 'Contributing' section links to an issue tracker but does not mention how to set up local development or run tests. README.md
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Dormant codebase
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No build provenance
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No artifact signing
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- No SBOM
Info — 2 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Dependency hygiene not measured — no packages were read
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 14 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet: not applicable — `dotnet list package --vulnerable` could not read this solution's dependency graph — it reported an error for at least one project and returned no package data at all (typically a packages.config / non-PackageReference project, which the command cannot read; classic .NET Framework projects are packages.config by default). No packages could be enumerated, so there was nothing to scan for NuGet CVEs — excluded rather than scored, because an unreadable dependency graph is not a clean one; migrate the project(s) to PackageReference to enable this scan | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside build output (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No supported non-.NET dependency lockfile found outside build output (npm package-lock/yarn/pnpm/bun, Go go.mod, Rust Cargo.lock, Maven pom.xml, Gradle lockfiles, Python requirements.txt/poetry.lock/Pipfile.lock/pdm.lock, PHP composer.lock, Ruby Gemfile.lock, Elixir mix.lock, Dart pubspec.lock, Swift Package.resolved); nothing for OSV to scan. A NuGet-only repo stays NotApplicable — .NET CVEs are D30's domain. | 0 | — |
| D40 · Network Egress Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here. | 0 | — |