Executive summary
The system holds an adequate standing with a score of 59%, indicating a workable asset that carries real operational risk. While the code itself is pristine, the organization’s ability to maintain and evolve it is fragile. This gap between technical quality and operational maturity creates a hidden liability that could slow future delivery or increase support costs unexpectedly.
The value at stake is modest, comprising roughly 2,280 lines of production logic with a rebuild cost of approximately €4,300. Because the system is small and consists almost entirely of straight-line logic, the financial exposure from a total failure is low. However, the low maturity score suggests that knowledge is not well-documented or standardized, meaning the cost of onboarding new engineers or recovering from incidents is disproportionately high relative to the system’s size.
The primary risk is knowledge concentration. With a maturity score of 51%, the system lacks the institutional memory required for safe long-term operation. New teams may struggle to understand design choices, leading to slow development cycles and a higher likelihood of defects. This is not a code problem but a process gap that directly impacts delivery speed and reliability.
Conversely, the architecture and code health are exceptional, scoring 98% and 99% respectively. The code is clean, simple, and free of complex branching, which makes it highly reliable and easy to debug. This strong foundation means that when improvements are made, they will be stable and unlikely to introduce regressions. The system is technically sound but operationally under-supported.
Focus first on capturing significant decisions. Documenting key design choices in a centralized, discoverable format provides the highest leverage, transforming implicit knowledge into explicit guidance. This single action stabilizes the team’s ability to maintain the system. Automating releases and clarifying testing procedures in the documentation should follow immediately to close the remaining operational gaps.
Code Health
99% ★
Exemplary
Architecture
98% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
51%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
54%
Adequate · gated by P3, P4
Security
61%
Adequate · gated by 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.
Maturity 51% · 47% weightReadiness 54% · 26% weightSecurity 61% · 14% weightArchitecture 98% · 8% weightCode Health 99% · 4% weight
Raise Maturity 51 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 59 → ~64.
Code composition — where the lines go
Plumbing 2%Tests 98%
New since the last scan (1+)
- D44 · End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €1,400–€7,200
| Cost to rebuild | €1,400–€7,200 |
|---|---|
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.8× (at 59% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified for 2,228 line(s) outside the .NET model (the tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€4,300 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 51% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
2
Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible.
3
Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Value concentrated against a weak lens
This is a Small asset (~0.1 person-years to rebuild), and its weakest lens is Maturity at 51%. The operational and business risk on an asset this size concentrates there — that's where remediation buys the most protection.
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: 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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture — module dependency matrix
| depends on → | 1 ApplesAndPiesSteps | 2 Atm | 3 BulletTime | 4 ByFramework.XUnit.Feature | 5 Domain | 6 Library | 7 Retail | 8 Room | 9 Scrabble | 10 TickSpec | 11 AtmSteps | 12 ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature | 13 Computer | 14 Dependency | 15 FightSteps | 16 ImpliedPrice | 17 Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec | 18 NUnit.TickSpec | 19 ScenarioMetadataSteps | 20 ShelterSteps | 21 StockStepDefinitions | 22 StockSteps | 23 TicTacToeStepDefinitions | 24 TicTacToeSteps | 25 TickSpec.FeatureParser | 26 TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner | 27 TickSpec.Functional.Patterns | 28 TickSpec.LineParser | 29 TickSpec.NUnit | 30 TickSpec.NUnit.Parser | 31 TickSpec.ScenarioModule | 32 TickSpec.ScenarioRun | 33 AdditionSteps | 34 Dependency.BowlSteps | 35 Dependency.DogSteps | 36 Dependency.FeedingSteps | 37 HangmanSteps | 38 ScrabbleSteps | 39 TickSpec.BlockParser | 40 TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 ApplesAndPiesSteps | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2 Atm | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3 BulletTime | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4 ByFramework.XUnit.Feature | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5 Domain | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 6 Library | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7 Retail | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 8 Room | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 9 Scrabble | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10 TickSpec | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 11 AtmSteps | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 12 ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 Computer | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 14 Dependency | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 15 FightSteps | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 16 ImpliedPrice | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 18 NUnit.TickSpec | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 19 ScenarioMetadataSteps | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 20 ShelterSteps | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 21 StockStepDefinitions | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 22 StockSteps | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 23 TicTacToeStepDefinitions | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 24 TicTacToeSteps | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25 TickSpec.FeatureParser | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 26 TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 27 TickSpec.Functional.Patterns | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 28 TickSpec.LineParser | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 29 TickSpec.NUnit | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 30 TickSpec.NUnit.Parser | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 31 TickSpec.ScenarioModule | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 32 TickSpec.ScenarioRun | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 33 AdditionSteps | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 34 Dependency.BowlSteps | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 35 Dependency.DogSteps | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 36 Dependency.FeedingSteps | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 37 HangmanSteps | 2 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 38 ScrabbleSteps | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 39 TickSpec.BlockParser | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 40 TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Dependency, pointing down the layeringAbove the diagonal — part of a cycleThe module itself
11→2 AtmSteps depends on Atm✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in AtmSteps → type in Atm) reference.
- Which types
AtmSteps.AtmSteps→Atm.Event
- Direction
- AtmSteps uses Atm. Changing Atm can break AtmSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
12→10 ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature.Shelter→TickSpec.AutofacFixture
- Direction
- ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break ByFeature.CustomContainer.Feature, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
13→8 Computer depends on Room✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Computer → type in Room) reference.
- Which types
Computer.Computer→Room.RoomTemperature
- Direction
- Computer uses Room. Changing Room can break Computer, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
14→10 Dependency depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Dependency → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
Dependency.FeedingSteps→TickSpec.IInstanceProvider
- Direction
- Dependency uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break Dependency, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
15→10 FightSteps depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in FightSteps → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
FightSteps.FightSteps→TickSpec.Table
- Direction
- FightSteps uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break FightSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
16→10 ImpliedPrice depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in ImpliedPrice → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
ImpliedPrice.ImpliedPrice→TickSpec.Table
- Direction
- ImpliedPrice uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break ImpliedPrice, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
17→10 Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec.FeatureFixture→TickSpec.Scenario
- Direction
- Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break Microsoft.VisualStudio.TestTools.UnitTesting.TickSpec, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
18→10 NUnit.TickSpec depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in NUnit.TickSpec → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
NUnit.TickSpec.FeatureFixture→TickSpec.Scenario
- Direction
- NUnit.TickSpec uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break NUnit.TickSpec, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
19→10 ScenarioMetadataSteps depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in ScenarioMetadataSteps → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
ScenarioMetadataSteps.ScenarioMetadataSteps→TickSpec.ScenarioMetadata
- Direction
- ScenarioMetadataSteps uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break ScenarioMetadataSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
20→5 ShelterSteps depends on Domain✕
- Type pairs
- 5 distinct (type in ShelterSteps → type in Domain) references.
- Which types
ShelterSteps.BootstrappingSteps→Domain.CatteryShelterSteps.BootstrappingSteps→Domain.CatteryFactoryShelterSteps.BootstrappingSteps→Domain.KennelShelterSteps.ShelterSteps→Domain.CatteryShelterSteps.ShelterSteps→Domain.Kennel
- Direction
- ShelterSteps uses Domain. Changing Domain can break ShelterSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
21→7 StockStepDefinitions depends on Retail✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in StockStepDefinitions → type in Retail) reference.
- Which types
StockStepDefinitions.StockStepDefinitions→Retail.StockItem
- Direction
- StockStepDefinitions uses Retail. Changing Retail can break StockStepDefinitions, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
22→7 StockSteps depends on Retail✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in StockSteps → type in Retail) reference.
- Which types
StockSteps.StockSteps→Retail.StockItem
- Direction
- StockSteps uses Retail. Changing Retail can break StockSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
23→10 TicTacToeStepDefinitions depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TicTacToeStepDefinitions → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TicTacToeStepDefinitions.TicTacToeStepDefinitions→TickSpec.Table
- Direction
- TicTacToeStepDefinitions uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TicTacToeStepDefinitions, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
24→10 TicTacToeSteps depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TicTacToeSteps → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TicTacToeSteps.TicTacToeSteps→TickSpec.Table
- Direction
- TicTacToeSteps uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TicTacToeSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
25→10 TickSpec.FeatureParser depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.FeatureParser → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.FeatureParser.FeatureParser→TickSpec.FeatureSource
- Direction
- TickSpec.FeatureParser uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.FeatureParser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
26→10 TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner.ConsoleRunner→TickSpec.LineSource
- Direction
- TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.Functional.ConsoleRunner, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
27→10 TickSpec.Functional.Patterns depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.Functional.Patterns → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.Functional.Patterns.Patterns→TickSpec.StepType
- Direction
- TickSpec.Functional.Patterns uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.Functional.Patterns, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
28→10 TickSpec.LineParser depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in TickSpec.LineParser → type in TickSpec) references.
- Which types
TickSpec.LineParser.LineParser→TickSpec.StepTypeTickSpec.LineParser.LineType→TickSpec.StepType
- Direction
- TickSpec.LineParser uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.LineParser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
29→10 TickSpec.NUnit depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in TickSpec.NUnit → type in TickSpec) references.
- Which types
TickSpec.NUnit.FeatureFixture→TickSpec.ScenarioTickSpec.NUnit.FeatureFixture`1→TickSpec.ScenarioSource
- Direction
- TickSpec.NUnit uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.NUnit, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
30→10 TickSpec.NUnit.Parser depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.NUnit.Parser → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.NUnit.Parser.Parser→TickSpec.FeatureSource
- Direction
- TickSpec.NUnit.Parser uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.NUnit.Parser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
31→10 TickSpec.ScenarioModule depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in TickSpec.ScenarioModule → type in TickSpec) references.
- Which types
TickSpec.ScenarioModule.ScenarioModule→TickSpec.ActionTickSpec.ScenarioModule.ScenarioModule→TickSpec.ScenarioTickSpec.ScenarioModule.ScenarioModule→TickSpec.ScenarioMetadata
- Direction
- TickSpec.ScenarioModule uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.ScenarioModule, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
32→10 TickSpec.ScenarioRun depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 3 distinct (type in TickSpec.ScenarioRun → type in TickSpec) references.
- Which types
TickSpec.ScenarioRun.ScenarioRun→TickSpec.IInstanceProviderTickSpec.ScenarioRun.ScenarioRun→TickSpec.ScenarioMetadataTickSpec.ScenarioRun.ScenarioRun→TickSpec.Table
- Direction
- TickSpec.ScenarioRun uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.ScenarioRun, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→6 AdditionSteps depends on Library✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in AdditionSteps → type in Library) reference.
- Which types
AdditionSteps.AdditionSteps→Library.Calculator
- Direction
- AdditionSteps uses Library. Changing Library can break AdditionSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→10 AdditionSteps depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in AdditionSteps → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
AdditionSteps.AdditionFeature→TickSpec.ScenarioSource
- Direction
- AdditionSteps uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break AdditionSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
33→29 AdditionSteps depends on TickSpec.NUnit✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in AdditionSteps → type in TickSpec.NUnit) reference.
- Which types
AdditionSteps.AdditionFeature→TickSpec.NUnit.FeatureFixture`1
- Direction
- AdditionSteps uses TickSpec.NUnit. Changing TickSpec.NUnit can break AdditionSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
34→14 Dependency.BowlSteps depends on Dependency✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in Dependency.BowlSteps → type in Dependency) reference.
- Which types
Dependency.BowlSteps.BowlSteps→Dependency.DogBowl
- Direction
- Dependency.BowlSteps uses Dependency. Changing Dependency can break Dependency.BowlSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
35→14 Dependency.DogSteps depends on Dependency✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Dependency.DogSteps → type in Dependency) references.
- Which types
Dependency.DogSteps.DogSteps→Dependency.DogDependency.DogSteps.DogSteps→Dependency.DogBowl
- Direction
- Dependency.DogSteps uses Dependency. Changing Dependency can break Dependency.DogSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
36→14 Dependency.FeedingSteps depends on Dependency✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in Dependency.FeedingSteps → type in Dependency) references.
- Which types
Dependency.FeedingSteps.FeedingSteps→Dependency.DogBowlDependency.FeedingSteps.FeedingSteps→Dependency.DogSize
- Direction
- Dependency.FeedingSteps uses Dependency. Changing Dependency can break Dependency.FeedingSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→10 HangmanSteps depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 2 distinct (type in HangmanSteps → type in TickSpec) references.
- Which types
HangmanSteps.HangmanFeature→TickSpec.ScenarioSourceHangmanSteps.HangmanSteps→TickSpec.StepType
- Direction
- HangmanSteps uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break HangmanSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
37→29 HangmanSteps depends on TickSpec.NUnit✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in HangmanSteps → type in TickSpec.NUnit) reference.
- Which types
HangmanSteps.HangmanFeature→TickSpec.NUnit.FeatureFixture`1
- Direction
- HangmanSteps uses TickSpec.NUnit. Changing TickSpec.NUnit can break HangmanSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→9 ScrabbleSteps depends on Scrabble✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in ScrabbleSteps → type in Scrabble) reference.
- Which types
ScrabbleSteps.ScrabbleSteps→Scrabble.Property
- Direction
- ScrabbleSteps uses Scrabble. Changing Scrabble can break ScrabbleSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→10 ScrabbleSteps depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in ScrabbleSteps → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
ScrabbleSteps.ScrabbleFixture→TickSpec.ScenarioSource
- Direction
- ScrabbleSteps uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break ScrabbleSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
38→29 ScrabbleSteps depends on TickSpec.NUnit✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in ScrabbleSteps → type in TickSpec.NUnit) reference.
- Which types
ScrabbleSteps.ScrabbleFixture→TickSpec.NUnit.FeatureFixture`1
- Direction
- ScrabbleSteps uses TickSpec.NUnit. Changing TickSpec.NUnit can break ScrabbleSteps, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→10 TickSpec.BlockParser depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.BlockParser → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.BlockParser.StepBlock→TickSpec.StepType
- Direction
- TickSpec.BlockParser uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.BlockParser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
39→28 TickSpec.BlockParser depends on TickSpec.LineParser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.BlockParser → type in TickSpec.LineParser) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.BlockParser.ScannedLine→TickSpec.LineParser.LineType
- Direction
- TickSpec.BlockParser uses TickSpec.LineParser. Changing TickSpec.LineParser can break TickSpec.BlockParser, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→10 TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest depends on TickSpec✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest → type in TickSpec) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest.FeatureParserTest→TickSpec.FeatureSource
- Direction
- TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest uses TickSpec. Changing TickSpec can break TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→28 TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest depends on TickSpec.LineParser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest → type in TickSpec.LineParser) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest.FeatureParserTest→TickSpec.LineParser.LineType
- Direction
- TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest uses TickSpec.LineParser. Changing TickSpec.LineParser can break TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
40→39 TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest depends on TickSpec.BlockParser✕
- Type pairs
- 1 distinct (type in TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest → type in TickSpec.BlockParser) reference.
- Which types
TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest.FeatureParserTest→TickSpec.BlockParser.FeatureBlock
- Direction
- TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest uses TickSpec.BlockParser. Changing TickSpec.BlockParser can break TickSpec.Test.FeatureParserTest, not the reverse.
- Position
- Below the diagonal — points down the layering, which is what you want.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
8.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
D39 · .NET / C#
IL Efficiency
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X12 · Repo
Unreachable branch
10.0
X13 · Repo
Undrained process stream
10.0
X16 · Repo
Unfloored truncation loop
10.0
X18 · Repo
Disposal-pattern correctness
10.0
X19 · Repo
Unrestored process-global state
10.0
X20 · Repo
Mistyped argument guard
10.0
X21 · Repo
Side-effecting pattern guard
10.0
X22 · Repo
Contradicted release guard
10.0
X23 · Repo
Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
10.0
X25 · Repo
Inert configuration knob
10.0
X26 · Repo
Unsynchronised callback handoff
10.0
X27 · Repo
Collection changed while being enumerated
10.0
X28 · Repo
Index access outside its own emptiness guard
10.0
X29 · Repo
Per-element action decided by a fixed element
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X30 · Repo
Support guard that admits what it rejects
10.0
X32 · Repo
Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
7.8
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
At a glance — Security
The Good
D28 · .NET / C#
Secrets (history)
10.0
D29 · .NET / C#
Static Analysis (SAST)
8.6
X14 · Repo
Bypassable address classification
10.0
X15 · Repo
Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
10.0
X17 · Repo
Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
10.0
X24 · Repo
Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
10.0
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2021 — Injection | 8 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by documenting key architectural decisions in a dedicated, discoverable location to establish a clear design history. Next, implement automated CI/CD pipelines to ensure releases are repeatable and reversible, while simultaneously organizing the codebase by separating production code from tooling. Finally, update the README to accurately reflect the project's testing procedures and current capabilities, ensuring the documentation aligns with the actual implementation.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form). | +8.5 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible. | +7.3 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite. | +6.5 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with CSharp.csproj. | +3.1 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +4.6 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists. | +4.6 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ScenarioGen.fs. | +2.3 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. | +1.8 pts | Low | Bus Factor |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 2.0 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 3.7 | Slop | Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED |
| Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs | 7.1 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 43 shared lines) |
| Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/StockSteps.fs | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (27–28 lines × 3) |
| Examples/ByStyle/Attributes/Scrabble.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/TicTacToe/TicTacToeStepDefinitions.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFeature/FunctionalInjection/StockSteps.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByStyle/Functional/FeatureFixture.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/FSharp/StockStepDefinitions.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/AdditionSteps.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFeature/FunctionalInjection/NunitWiring.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) |
| Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/CalculatorDomain.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) |
| TickSpec/ScenarioGen.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/FSharp/Program.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFeature/CustomContainer/Domain.fs | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) |
| Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/CSharp/CSharp.csproj | 8.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: Low XML-doc coverage: CSharp(net6.0) |
How the grades work
Critical — 6
A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.
Serious — 28
Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.
Minor — 12
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
Could not be resolved — 5
Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.
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. 58 of 61 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 0.9 — 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 — 61 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D9D10D13D14D15D16D17D19D21D26D27D28D29D34D35D36D39D44AX10AX3AX4AX5AX8GD1M1M2M3M4P1P11P3P4P6X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X24X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X32X4
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, 28 of 46 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 |
| Watchdog duplication detector (in-process) | Code duplication | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.400 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.400 | ✓ 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
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check's reader does not cover the language this repository's product is written in, so it had nothing of the product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 1 test(s) behind this row are the ones the C# collector could read, and this repository also carries at least 69 test source file(s) (.fs) that it cannot: it parses C# syntax and matches C# test attributes, so a vitest/jest/JUnit/pytest-style suite is invisible to it. Skipped tests, zero-assertion tests and the other quality signals on this row are UNMEASURED in that suite — their absence from the counts above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that those tests are sound.
- D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Test reliability not scored — the test tier(s) ran but surfaced none of this repository's 2 test method(s) to the runner, so flakiness couldn't be exercised. This is an analysis-environment limitation, not a finding about the tests.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. No dependency manifest this pass reads for hygiene (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems)) was found in this repository, so no package was assessed. Zero packages read is NOT a clean dependency tree, so this is NOT SCORED — a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. This row is about dependency HYGIENE — outdated, deprecated or unmaintained direct dependencies; known CVEs in the same dependency graph are a separate question, reported under D30 wherever the manifest is OSV-readable.
- D17 Explicit Debt — measured, with a gap in what it reached — Watchdog measured this, but not all of it. What it did not reach is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — so the numbers on that dimension cover less than the repository, and the part left out is not evidence that it would have passed. The 0 deducted marker(s) and the 0.0/KLoC density on this row were taken over this repository's .NET projects ALONE: .fs (2,228 lines, 98% of production source) went unread, because every marker collector on this path is reached through a C# workspace. D17's marker collectors need a compiler we do not have for that language, so none of its nine marker kinds were read there. The debt in that source is UNMEASURED — its absence from the score above is a gap in this analyzer's language coverage, not a finding that the code carries none.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. The loaded project set declares no packable project and no `.Contracts` project, so there is no intentionally-exposed surface for API consistency to be judged over.
- P2 Observability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Observability was not assessed: this check recognises the logging, tracing/metrics and health-check idioms of .NET, the JVM, Go, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Ruby, PHP, Swift, Dart, Elixir and Erlang, and most of this repository's production source is in none of them. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. No backup/snapshot/replication config, RTO/RPO or restore-procedure documentation was found — and no production persistence was detected either (no data-access packages, no data-store services, no database resources), so there is nothing in this repository whose loss a DR control would recover. If this system's data lives in a platform or ops repo we can't see, that's where the DR evidence belongs.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so 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.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- 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. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
- 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.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- 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.
- D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
- 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
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
17 duplicated block group(s) detected. One further row reports members as variants of one another; it aggregates block groups already counted above and is not itself counted. 18 of the 18 are in trees this repository does not ship — vendored, example/demo, fixture and benchmark code — and are ranked below the shipped groups rather than excluded from them: the duplication there is real and is still counted in this dimension's score. The dimensions that publish a production-file census leave those trees out of theirs, so this count is deliberately drawn over the wider population.
Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/TicTacToe/TicTacToeStepDefinitions.fs:27
Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/FSharp/StockStepDefinitions.fs:7
Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 43 shared lines)Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:1
Duplicated block (31 lines × 4)Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:1
Duplicated block (31 lines × 2)Examples/ByStyle/Attributes/Scrabble.fs:1
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with TicTacToeStepDefinitions.fs, StockSteps.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with StockStepDefinitions.fs, Program.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 43 shared lines) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with NunitWiring.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Code Duplication in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
4 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
2 test methods: 2 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 1 tests. Measured on the C# suite only — at least 69 test source file(s) (.fs) went unread, so its test quality is unmeasured and is not in these counts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 244 packages use a banned license. ★ DEPTH: this repository's MSBuild projects declare 20 direct `PackageReference`(s), and 196 further package(s) were reached beyond them by closing the graph over nuget.org's own nuspec dependency graph — so a banned licence pulled in only by a dependency's OWN dependencies is inside this verdict. A package whose licence nuget.org could not be asked for is not graded, and version ranges are taken at their lower bound, so this is the closure as that graph states it rather than a restored consumer's exact resolution.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D16 · Bus Factor
1 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is fake-build/Build.fs. Counted over 7 of the 22 production source files in this repository: 14 are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over, and the remaining 1 have no attributable history left to measure.
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
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 52 LoC in the .NET projects (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Measured on the .NET source only: .fs (98% of production source) was not read, and carries at least 0 uncounted task marker(s) in 0 file(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The repository's root README is clear and complete for a project description (BDD framework for .NET with Gherkin scenarios, ticking methods, breakpoints in scenarios) plus installation (NuGet/Paket, binaries on .NET Standard 2.0/4.5+, VS2017 solution file, historical Silverlight support), and an extensive feature specification section that clips mid-scenario before the outline sections are named. The Examples directory READMEs its own subdirectory, not the root project.
Low XML-doc coverage: CSharp(net6.0)Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/CSharp/CSharp.csproj
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Low XML-doc coverage finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with CSharp.csproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 28 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 2 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
84 % of calls cross a namespace and 2 % go through an interface, but 50 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Scattered collaborators
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Scattered collaborators finding(s) in Navigability. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
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)
8 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 3 medium, 0 low. 5 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens.
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 2 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 5 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
2 of 8 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is TickSpec/ScenarioGen.fs. Counted over 8 of the 22 production source files in this repository: the rest are under the ~2,400-byte size floor this dimension measures over.
Orphaned knowledgeTickSpec/ScenarioGen.fs
Further orphaned files (smaller)
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Orphaned knowledge finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness — start with ScenarioGen.fs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) 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).
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
What to do
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D39 · IL Efficiency
0 of 8 first-party methods have an oversized IL body.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
1 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 19 platform declaration(s) and 0 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.
End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0
What to do
- Resolve the 1 End-of-life runtime finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-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, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.
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?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
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 2 of 2 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 numbered `NNNN-title` documents in any markup this check reads, 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.
- No C4/Structurizr/PlantUML/Mermaid/Graphviz/D2 diagram, no drawn diagram named for the architecture, no file named `architecture` or `design` in any markup this check reads, and nothing in the README, docs or contributor guides that announces the shape — no `## Architecture` heading, no "architecture overview"/"high-level design" phrasing, no "the architecture is …" introduction, no guided code tour. A shape laid out in prose that never names itself as the architecture is not visible to this check, and neither is one kept outside the repository, so this row reports the absence of a re-findable shape document — not evidence that nobody wrote the shape down.
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 each file named `NNNN-title` in whatever markup those docs already use, is the most discoverable form).
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists — searched for: `dockerfile`, `docker-compose`, `compose.yaml`, `compose.yml`. Each was matched case- and separator-insensitively against file and directory NAMES anywhere in the tree, and against the CONTENTS of manifest files (package.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.slnx, *.yml, Dockerfile); the README's own prose never counts, so a claim is never refuted by merely being made. Nothing outside that search was read — a footprint living only in a submodule, in a file type not listed here, or under a name none of those terms matches is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
Do you agree with this assessment?
P11 · BDD / executable specs
Do you agree with this assessment?
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 was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 1421 CI workflow file(s) in this repository, and the scanner and linter configuration checked in beside them. A scan that runs outside CI, one configured in your forge's web UI rather than in a committed file, or a tool whose name is none of those this check carries, is not seen — if that is your case the row is wrong, and saying so is more useful than adding a second scanner.
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
- No release automation was found in CI — neither a deploy stage (Helm/Kubernetes/compose manifests, an orchestrated rollout) nor a publish job that ships the built artifact. Releases appear to be run by hand, which is slower, less repeatable and harder to reverse.
What to do
- Automate the release in CI — a deploy stage for a service (Helm/Kubernetes manifests or an equivalent rollout), or a tag-triggered publish job for an artifact — so releases are repeatable and reversible.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P6 · Release Hygiene
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X12 · Unreachable branch
Do you agree with this assessment?
X13 · Undrained process stream
Do you agree with this assessment?
X14 · Bypassable address classification
Do you agree with this assessment?
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
Do you agree with this assessment?
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
Do you agree with this assessment?
X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document
Do you agree with this assessment?
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
Do you agree with this assessment?
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X22 · Contradicted release guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
Do you agree with this assessment?
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
Do you agree with this assessment?
X25 · Inert configuration knob
Do you agree with this assessment?
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
Do you agree with this assessment?
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
Do you agree with this assessment?
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
Do you agree with this assessment?
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
Do you agree with this assessment?
X32 · Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 99% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 98% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 51% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 54% | Adequate — gated by P3, P4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 61% | Adequate — gated by D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Unscored — 1 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — 1 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 58 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
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- 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.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test runner surfaced no tests
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — no supported dependency manifest was read
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution, but this repository's production source is mostly .fs — the .NET project files present are an immaterial minority — so the dimension does not apply.
- 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 intentionally-exposed public API to evaluate for consistency.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — At only 2280 LoC across 4 projects this is a small multi-module codebase that clearly needs boundaries. No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that.
- 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.
- 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.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet).
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — D6 reads a CS/VB/GO/SCALA/SWIFT/DART/JAVA/PY/KT/TS/TSX/MTS/CTS/JS/JSX/MJS/CJS/PHP/RB/RS/ERL/EX/EXS class graph only — this repository's production source is .fs, which was left unread. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage NOT MEASURED: `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` names a data collector that ships in the `coverlet.collector` package, and this repository wires up none — no test project references it and no runsettings declares one. The absence of coverage here is therefore not evidence about the suite or about our analyzer environment: without a collector, `--collect` produces nothing even from a suite that builds and passes. Add a `coverlet.collector` PackageReference to the test project(s) (or commit the Cobertura/OpenCover/lcov report your CI produces) and real coverage will be measured. It is excluded from the score rather than counted as a near-zero defect.
- DM1 Domain Modelling — applicable but not scored (2 of 3 signals for this style — below the bar we score at): 28 value object(s); 2 domain event(s); its domain events are published by services or handlers — no domain entity raises one
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this lens 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 lens looks for
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — reported, not scored — this repository's C# declares no analysable method bodies (a constants, record or DTO assembly), and this score is a density of unfinished work per method, which has no denominator here. The file-level signals below were still collected and are shown in full
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, and the automatic-re-run check to any GitHub-Actions workflow, 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 — Observability was not assessed: this check recognises the logging, tracing/metrics and health-check idioms of .NET, the JVM, Go, Python, JavaScript/TypeScript, Rust, Ruby, PHP, Swift, Dart, Elixir and Erlang, and most of this repository's production source is in none of them. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- 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) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, 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.
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Critical — 6 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Orphaned knowledge TickSpec/ScenarioGen.fs
Serious — 28 finding(s)
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/TicTacToe/TicTacToeStepDefinitions.fs:27
- Duplicated block (16 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/StockSteps.fs:7
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/FSharp/StockStepDefinitions.fs:7
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/FSharp/Program.fs:1
D19 · Documentation Quality
- Low XML-doc coverage: CSharp(net6.0) Examples/ByFramework/CommandLine/CSharp/CSharp.csproj
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D4 · Code Duplication
- Near-duplicate member family (4 members, 43 shared lines) Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (31 lines × 4) Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (31 lines × 2) Examples/ByStyle/Attributes/Scrabble.fs:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (27–28 lines × 3) Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/StockSteps.fs:25
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) Examples/ByFeature/FunctionalInjection/StockSteps.fs:4
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12–13 lines × 2) Examples/ByStyle/Functional/FeatureFixture.fs:7
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:35
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/AdditionSteps.fs:6
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (9 lines × 3) Examples/ByFeature/FunctionalInjection/NunitWiring.fs:28
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7–8 lines × 4) Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:27
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) Examples/ByFramework/Expecto/FSharp.Expecto/CalculatorDomain.fs:1
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6–7 lines × 5) Examples/ByFeature/DependencyInjection/NunitWiring.fs:39
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) TickSpec/ScenarioGen.fs:28
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) Examples/ByFeature/CustomContainer/Domain.fs:13
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
- End-of-life runtime: .NET net6.0
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured — no coverage collector is wired up
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- No deployment automation
SC1 · Supply-chain hygiene
- NuGet dependencies are not locked
Minor — 12 finding(s)
D16 · Bus Factor
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
D27 · Navigability
- Scattered collaborators
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- REDACTED
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No ADRs
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No architecture diagram/doc
M3 · Folder & project structure
- No src/ separation
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README/code drift
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No SAST
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-66ebe7e88ab74a029deec3afe9720b86/history.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-66ebe7e88ab74a029deec3afe9720b86/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off . | 8 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. | 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 | — |
| 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 | — |
| D43 · Malicious Dependencies | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not applicable — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Python pyproject.toml/requirements.txt (pip/uv/Poetry), a Swift Package.swift/Package.resolved, a Cargo manifest, a Go module (go.mod/go.sum), a Gradle version catalogue, a Maven POM, an sbt build (build.sbt), composer.json, package.json, a Dart pubspec.yaml, an Elixir mix.exs/mix.lock (Hex), a rebar.config / erlang.mk DEPS (Hex), a Ruby Gemfile/Gemfile.lock or .gemspec (Bundler/RubyGems) — not scanned yet). | 0 | — |