Executive summary
fuzhengwei/Lottery scores 49 out of 100, but it is rated At risk while a critical security finding is open; the score itself is unchanged.
The weakest lens counts most in the score, and here that is Production Readiness, which scores 31 and is rated Weak. Its CI/CD gates dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Production Readiness can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality and to resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance, and if Production Readiness rose to 70, the score would rise from 49 to about 64.
14 findings are critical: 12 in Dependency Vulnerabilities, one in Dependency direction and one in License Compliance.
Watchdog couldn't measure 16 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Test Reliability and Dependency Hygiene, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 1,133 lines, which would take an estimated 0.1 person-years, around €1,300, to rebuild.
If Production Readiness rose from 31 to 70, the lowest score rated Strong, the score would rise from 49 to about 64.
Rebuild cost: about €1,300 · Estimate
| Cost to rebuild | €420 to €2,100, for 7 to 22 hours of work, about 0.1 person-years for one engineer |
|---|---|
| Difficulty of the problem | Standard, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write. |
| Quality factor | ×0.7 at a score of 49. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it. |
| Size | Very small: 1,133 lines of product code |
Top priorities
Diagnosis: what the measurements show together
Architecture — module dependency graph
Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which
| uses → | 1 lottery | 2 lottery.common | 3 lottery.domain.strategy.model.req | 4 lottery.domain.strategy.model.res | 5 lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo | 6 lottery.infrastructure.po | 7 lottery.rpc.dto | 8 lottery.rpc.req | 9 lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates | 10 lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm | 11 lottery.infrastructure.dao | 12 lottery.rpc.res | 13 lottery.domain.strategy.repository | 14 lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl | 15 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw | 16 lottery.rpc | 17 lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl | 18 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl | 19 lottery.interfaces |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 lottery | |||||||||||||||||||
| 2 lottery.common | |||||||||||||||||||
| 3 lottery.domain.strategy.model.req | |||||||||||||||||||
| 4 lottery.domain.strategy.model.res | |||||||||||||||||||
| 5 lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo | |||||||||||||||||||
| 6 lottery.infrastructure.po | |||||||||||||||||||
| 7 lottery.rpc.dto | |||||||||||||||||||
| 8 lottery.rpc.req | |||||||||||||||||||
| 9 lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 10 lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 11 lottery.infrastructure.dao | 4 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 12 lottery.rpc.res | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 13 lottery.domain.strategy.repository | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 14 lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl | 2 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 15 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 16 lottery.rpc | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| 17 lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| 18 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||
| 19 lottery.interfaces | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
9→6 lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates uses lottery.infrastructure.po✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.po.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.StrategyRich→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.Strategycn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.StrategyRich→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.StrategyDetail
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates uses lottery.infrastructure.po, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.po can break lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates can't break lottery.infrastructure.po.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
10→5 lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.BaseAlgorithm→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo.AwardRateInfocn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.IDrawAlgorithm→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo.AwardRateInfo
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.vo.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
11→6 lottery.infrastructure.dao uses lottery.infrastructure.po✕
- Connections
- 4 pairs of types, where a type in lottery.infrastructure.dao uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.po.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IActivityDao→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.Activitycn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IAwardDao→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.Awardcn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IStrategyDao→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.Strategycn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IStrategyDetailDao→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.StrategyDetail
- Direction
- lottery.infrastructure.dao uses lottery.infrastructure.po, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.po can break lottery.infrastructure.dao, while a change to lottery.infrastructure.dao can't break lottery.infrastructure.po.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.infrastructure.dao uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
12→2 lottery.rpc.res uses lottery.common✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.rpc.res uses a type in lottery.common.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.res.ActivityRes→cn.itedus.lottery.common.Result
- Direction
- lottery.rpc.res uses lottery.common, so a change to lottery.common can break lottery.rpc.res, while a change to lottery.rpc.res can't break lottery.common.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.rpc.res uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
12→7 lottery.rpc.res uses lottery.rpc.dto✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.rpc.res uses a type in lottery.rpc.dto.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.res.ActivityRes→cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.dto.ActivityDto
- Direction
- lottery.rpc.res uses lottery.rpc.dto, so a change to lottery.rpc.dto can break lottery.rpc.res, while a change to lottery.rpc.res can't break lottery.rpc.dto.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.rpc.res uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→6 lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses lottery.infrastructure.po✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.po.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.IStrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.Award
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses lottery.infrastructure.po, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.po can break lottery.domain.strategy.repository, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository can't break lottery.infrastructure.po.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
13→9 lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.IStrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.StrategyRich
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates can break lottery.domain.strategy.repository, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.repository uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
14→10 lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl.DefaultRateRandomDrawAlgorithm→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.BaseAlgorithmcn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl.SingleRateRandomDrawAlgorithm→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.BaseAlgorithm
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→3 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.req✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.req.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.IDrawExec→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.req.DrawReq
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.req, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.req can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.req.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→4 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.res✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.res.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.IDrawExec→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.res.DrawResult
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.res, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.res can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.res.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→6 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.infrastructure.po✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.po.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.DrawBase→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.StrategyDetail
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.infrastructure.po, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.po can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw can't break lottery.infrastructure.po.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
15→10 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.DrawConfig→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.IDrawAlgorithm
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw can't break lottery.domain.strategy.service.algorithm.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→8 lottery.rpc uses lottery.rpc.req✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.rpc uses a type in lottery.rpc.req.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.IActivityBooth→cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.req.ActivityReq
- Direction
- lottery.rpc uses lottery.rpc.req, so a change to lottery.rpc.req can break lottery.rpc, while a change to lottery.rpc can't break lottery.rpc.req.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.rpc uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
16→12 lottery.rpc uses lottery.rpc.res✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.rpc uses a type in lottery.rpc.res.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.IActivityBooth→cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.res.ActivityRes
- Direction
- lottery.rpc uses lottery.rpc.res, so a change to lottery.rpc.res can break lottery.rpc, while a change to lottery.rpc can't break lottery.rpc.res.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.rpc uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→6 lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.infrastructure.po✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.po.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl.StrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.po.Award
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.infrastructure.po, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.po can break lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl can't break lottery.infrastructure.po.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→9 lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl.StrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.StrategyRich
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates can break lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.aggregates.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→11 lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.infrastructure.dao✕
- Connections
- 3 pairs of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.dao.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl.StrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IAwardDaocn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl.StrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IStrategyDaocn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl.StrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IStrategyDetailDao
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.infrastructure.dao, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.dao can break lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl can't break lottery.infrastructure.dao.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
17→13 lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.repository✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl.StrategyRepository→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.IStrategyRepository
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.repository, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository can break lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.repository.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.repository.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→3 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.req✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.req.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl.DrawExecImpl→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.req.DrawReq
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.req, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.req can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.req.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→4 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.res✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.model.res.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl.DrawExecImpl→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.model.res.DrawResult
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.model.res, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.model.res can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.model.res.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→13 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.repository✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.repository.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl.DrawExecImpl→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.repository.IStrategyRepository
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.repository, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.repository can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.repository.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
18→15 lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw✕
- Connections
- 2 pairs of types, where a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a type in lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl.DrawExecImpl→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.DrawBasecn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl.DrawExecImpl→cn.itedus.lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.IDrawExec
- Direction
- lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw, so a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw can break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl, while a change to lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl can't break lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.domain.strategy.service.draw.impl uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→8 lottery.interfaces uses lottery.rpc.req✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.interfaces uses a type in lottery.rpc.req.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.interfaces.ActivityBooth→cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.req.ActivityReq
- Direction
- lottery.interfaces uses lottery.rpc.req, so a change to lottery.rpc.req can break lottery.interfaces, while a change to lottery.interfaces can't break lottery.rpc.req.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.interfaces uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→11 lottery.interfaces uses lottery.infrastructure.dao✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.interfaces uses a type in lottery.infrastructure.dao.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.interfaces.ActivityBooth→cn.itedus.lottery.infrastructure.dao.IActivityDao
- Direction
- lottery.interfaces uses lottery.infrastructure.dao, so a change to lottery.infrastructure.dao can break lottery.interfaces, while a change to lottery.interfaces can't break lottery.infrastructure.dao.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.interfaces uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→12 lottery.interfaces uses lottery.rpc.res✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.interfaces uses a type in lottery.rpc.res.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.interfaces.ActivityBooth→cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.res.ActivityRes
- Direction
- lottery.interfaces uses lottery.rpc.res, so a change to lottery.rpc.res can break lottery.interfaces, while a change to lottery.interfaces can't break lottery.rpc.res.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.interfaces uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
19→16 lottery.interfaces uses lottery.rpc✕
- Connections
- 1 pair of types, where a type in lottery.interfaces uses a type in lottery.rpc.
- The types involved
cn.itedus.lottery.interfaces.ActivityBooth→cn.itedus.lottery.rpc.IActivityBooth
- Direction
- lottery.interfaces uses lottery.rpc, so a change to lottery.rpc can break lottery.interfaces, while a change to lottery.interfaces can't break lottery.rpc.
- Position
- Below the diagonal: lottery.interfaces uses a module listed above it, which is the healthy direction.
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures | 16 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, establish a CI workflow to automatically build and test every push or pull request to ensure code quality. Next, resolve the banned license issue and create an architecture decision record folder to document significant design choices with their context and consequences. Finally, maintain a changelog to clearly track what ships in each release.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +6.4 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. | +4.7 pts | Low | License Compliance |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +8.4 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Record your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them. | +6.1 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +3.0 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production. | +2.6 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +2.2 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. | +1.7 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDACTED | 1.3 | Slop | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 2.0 | Slop | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.2 | Mixed | Dependency Vulnerabilities: Critical CVE: REDACTED |
| REDACTED | 7.9 | Mixed | Platform End-of-Life: End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2 |
| lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/ApiTest.java | 9.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No direct assertions: test_DrawStrategy |
| lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/SpringRunnerTest.java | 9.1 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No direct assertions: test_drawExec |
| lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/DrawAlgorithmTest.java | 9.5 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No direct assertions: test_randomDrawAlgorithm |
How the grades work
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.
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.
Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.
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. 54 of 57 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 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 57 dimensions across the health lenses
- 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, 27 of 38 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
- D8 Code Coverage — 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. Coverage NOT MEASURED: test source is present (.java) but the built-in coverage collector has no runner for this repository's ecosystem — so this suite was never executed by it. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a defect in the repo. To have real coverage read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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 — then the real number is read on the next scan.
- 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 source is present (.java) and this repository declares a JVM test suite (repository root, Maven), but it was not re-run: no test result was produced. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- 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. Not scored — a Maven build resolved 26 artifact(s) (26 behind a shipped release, reported), but the build resolved only part of the graph, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — measured, with a gap in what it reached — 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. Git history depth insufficient — this repository has 5 commit(s), too few for a reliable trend signal. The clone is complete, so there is no deeper history to fetch: the signal returns as the project accumulates history.
- D16 Bus Factor — 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. Too few commits for a meaningful bus factor (5 commit(s) sampled, fewer than the 50 this dimension needs before a bus factor means anything).
- D22 Internal API Consistency — 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. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — 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. Too few commits to judge knowledge freshness (5 commit(s) sampled).
- D35 Change Coupling — measured, with a gap in what it reached — 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. Git history depth insufficient — this repository has 5 commit(s), too few for a reliable change-coupling signal. The clone is complete, so there is no deeper history to fetch: the signal returns as the project accumulates history.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — 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. Render strategy: boot via ToolchainServer (lottery-interfaces). the service did not build — `mvn -B -q -DskipTests compile` exited -1: Tool stalled (no output) after 00:02:00.0111019.; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because REDACTED declares spring-boot-starter-web and the Spring Boot Maven plugin).
- C1 Data Protection — 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. These personal data controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks personal data controls.
- C2 Access Controls — 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. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
- C3 Audit Trail — 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. These audit controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks audit controls.
- C4 Data Retention — 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. These retention controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks retention controls.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — 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. These data-subject rights controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks data-subject rights controls.
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — 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 reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Java is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — 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. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
- X1 Async correctness — 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala, Rust or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X12 Unreachable branch — 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X13 Undrained process stream — 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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 reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala and Kotlin source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Python, Dart, Ruby, Scala or Kotlin was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
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.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- 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.
- 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.
- D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and on the advisory databases — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen. Coverage needs a RESOLVED graph: an unpinned requirements.txt, or a pom without a resolved build, yields partial coverage rather than a clean verdict. An ecosystem the analyzer cannot scan is reported as unmeasured, never as clean.
- 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.
- D43 Malicious Dependencies: Only packages some vulnerability database has already NAMED as malicious are seen — a compromise published in the last hours, or never reported at all, is invisible here, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a dependency is trustworthy. There is no typosquat or dependency-confusion analysis: a package nobody has reported is simply absent from the feeds. Coverage is the dependency scan's: an ecosystem that could not be scanned is disclosed as unmeasured, never as clean.
- 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.
- 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.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D5 · Coupling
6 production modules (Maven), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 1 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 5 of the 6 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 2 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D9 · Test Distribution
8 test methods: 8 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 8 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 8 tests (1 harness-style project(s) excluded from the assertion penalty).
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
1 of 7 declared JVM dependency artifact(s) use a banned license. Licences were resolved from the POMs Maven Central publishes, over the coordinates this repository's 7 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) declare with a version resolvable from the manifest itself — the same declaration-site closure this analysis reads for dependency currency. The JVM has no lockfile a checkout is guaranteed to carry, so this is deliberately NOT the transitive closure. 4 further coordinate(s) are declared with no version at the declaration site — inherited from a parent POM, a BOM or an unresolved Gradle version reference — and are NOT graded: this verdict covers what the checkout pins, not the full transitive graph. A further 4 coordinate(s) are not published to Maven Central — another repository (Google's Maven hosts androidx), a SNAPSHOT, or a private artifact — so their licences are not readable from here and they are outside this verdict.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Banned license finding(s) in License Compliance. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Stand up a CI pipeline, then gate License Compliance in it to reach Verified (currently Documented). — This repository has no CI pipeline, so there is nothing to add a gate to yet — the pipeline comes first. Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted task-comment markers across 1133 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.
D19 · Documentation Quality
This is a strong README for the Lottery 抽奖系统 project that clearly states what it does (a four-layer DDD distributed lottery system) and its purpose (learning to apply internet-scale tech stacks like SpringBoot/Dubbo/Redis/MQ). It opens with join links, code repo, and a study roadmap, then dives into why this project matters ('熬多少个996也只是成为重复的螺丝钉') before explaining the learning path: '咋,撸个项目?' -> '一、咋,撸个项目?'; '二、呀,能学东西!'; and an outline of topics including '主要type', '学习作业', and a roadmap. The document is clipped mid-sentence, so its full outline exists but no further sections are flagged as missing.
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 8.0/10. — This is a strong README for the Lottery 抽奖系统 project that clearly states what it does (a four-layer DDD distributed lottery system) and its purpose (learning to apply internet-scale tech stacks like SpringBoot/Dubbo/Redis/MQ). It opens with join links, code repo, and a study roadmap, then dives into why this project matters ('熬多少个996也只是成为重复的螺丝钉') before explaining the learning path: '咋,撸个项目?' -> '一、咋,撸个项目?'; '二、呀,能学东西!'; and an outline of topics including '主要type', '学习作业', and a roadmap. The document is clipped mid-sentence, so its full outline exists but no further sections are flagged as missing.
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 6 build units (Maven) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D27 · Navigability
91 % of calls cross a namespace and 16 % go through an interface, but 100 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
16 finding(s): 3 critical, 9 high, 4 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 9 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (9). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 issue-level).
- Resolve the 4 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 3 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
D43 · Malicious Dependencies
No dependency in any ecosystem this repository declares is published as malicious.
D44 · Platform End-of-Life
0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 1 end-of-life framework(s), read from 0 platform declaration(s) and 20 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.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 End-of-life framework finding(s) in Platform End-of-Life — start with REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
AX10 · Code composition
AX2 · Stateful singletons
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
- `lottery-domain` is a Domain project but references `lottery-infrastructure`, a Infrastructure project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
What to do
- Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).
AX6 · Interface segregation
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying 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 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
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 your significant design decisions. Write one short document per decision, giving its date, the situation, the decision and its consequences, and keep them together with your other design documents. A docs/adr folder with each file named by number and title is the easiest place to find them.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure
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 and configuration files (package.json and other *.json, *.csproj, *.props, *.sln/*.slnx, *.yml, *.toml, *.config, tool configs such as eslint.config.js, 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. — README.md:47
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Docker containerisation, but no Dockerfile/compose file exists.
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
P2 · Observability
- Only 1/2 runnable modules use logging (modules with no entry point or server are excluded — they are libraries a runnable module hosts). Silent: `lottery-interfaces`.
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining runnable modules so everything you run is diagnosable in production.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics (opentelemetry-java or Micrometer) and a health-check endpoint (Spring Boot Actuator's /actuator/health, or a /health route) for operability.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) — this repository has no CI pipeline yet, so run it locally to clear the existing findings, then make it a step of the first workflow you add so a regression fails the build. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: the 0 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
- Run what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — locally for now, since there is no CI pipeline here yet, and as a step of the first workflow you add 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.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)
What to do
- Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.
X14 · Bypassable address classification
X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader
X16 · Unfloored truncation loop
X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness
X19 · Unrestored process-global state
X20 · Mistyped argument guard
X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard
X22 · Contradicted release guard
X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation
X24 · Document value interpolated into markup unescaped
X25 · Inert configuration knob
X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff
X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated
X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard
X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element
X3 · Exception handling
X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects
X4 · Structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/19 of this repository's Java package directories are under a non-null default: a `package-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked` (JSpecify) or `@NonNullApi`, `@ParametersAreNonnullByDefault`, `@NonNullByDefault`, `@DefaultQualifier(NonNull.class)`; a `module-info.java` declaring `@NullMarked`; every type in it `@NullMarked`; or a build that runs NullAway with the package in `AnnotatedPackages`, or the Checker Framework's `NullnessChecker`. Elsewhere every reference admits null and no checker warns on the dereference that throws a `NullPointerException`.
What to do
- Declare the default where Java declares it: `@NullMarked` (org.jspecify.annotations) in each package's `package-info.java`, or once in `module-info.java`, and run NullAway (Error Prone) or the Checker Framework so the declaration is enforced. Then annotate the real exceptions `@Nullable` and resolve the suppressions rather than adding to them: a `@SuppressWarnings("NullAway")` or `castToNonNull(x)` on a value the checker could show to be null is a `NullPointerException` waiting for the path that makes it true — where the value genuinely cannot be null, say something the checker can see instead (a null check, `Objects.requireNonNull`, a non-null field initialised in the constructor).
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 76% | Adequate — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 77% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 54% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 31% | Weak — gated by P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 77% | Adequate — gated by D30 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not evidenced — 5 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) 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. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) 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. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) 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. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
Not included — 57 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.
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) 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
- 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
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- AXR1 Runtime accessibility — the service did not build — `mvn -B -q -DskipTests compile` exited -1: Tool stalled (no output) after 00:02:00.0111019.; runtime evidence skipped (launch chosen because REDACTED declares spring-boot-starter-web and the Spring Boot Maven plugin) This is a statement about this run, not a statement about your application: nothing here says the surface is inaccessible, only that it was never rendered.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) 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. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) 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. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included — the .java suite was found but not re-run
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — a Maven build resolved 26 artifact(s) (26 behind a shipped release, reported), but the build resolved only part of the graph, so this dimension's own question is only partly answered. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
- D16 Bus Factor — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. 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
- 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.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — too few commits to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- 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.
- D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- 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.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
- 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
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — no outbound HTTP usage detected — no HTTP client call or construction in the JVM source (service entry point: lottery-interfaces/src/main/java/cn/itedus/lottery/LotteryApplication.java:13 (@SpringBootApplication))
- P8 Schema migrations — no ORM, schema-migration tool or schema auto-create was found in this repository's dependency manifests or source, so there is no database schema for this check to judge
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) 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 — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a REDACTED, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Java code has 1,487 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) 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. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- X1 Async correctness — 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
- X10 Duplicated predicate — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X12 Unreachable branch — 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
- X13 Undrained process stream — 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
- X17 Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document — 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
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Java was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller — a Java request off Android takes no token: it is cancelled through the handle it returns (Future.cancel, Call.cancel, a Disposable), ambiently (io.grpc.Context) or by interrupting its thread, not through a parameter
- X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
- 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 — 14 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- Dependency-rule violation: lottery-domain (Domain) → lottery-infrastructure (Infrastructure)
- Banned license: mysql:mysql-connector-java
Serious — 6 finding(s)
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- REDACTED
- End-of-life framework: Spring Boot 2 REDACTED:1
- No CI pipeline
Minor — 17 finding(s)
- No direct assertions: test_DrawStrategy lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/ApiTest.java:80
- No direct assertions: test_idx lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/ApiTest.java:61
- No direct assertions: test_random lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/ApiTest.java:115
- No direct assertions: test_strategy lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/ApiTest.java:27
- No direct assertions: test_randomDrawAlgorithm lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/DrawAlgorithmTest.java:44
- No direct assertions: test_drawExec lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/SpringRunnerTest.java:43
- No direct assertions: test_insert lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/SpringRunnerTest.java:51
- No direct assertions: test_select lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/SpringRunnerTest.java:66
- Test project verifies nothing: lottery-interfaces lottery-interfaces/src/test/java/cn/itedus/lottery/test/ApiTest.java:80
- No ADRs found
- No ADRs
- No architecture diagram/doc
- README/code drift README.md:47
- Logging is not universal
- No SAST
- No changelog
- Java packages are not null-marked everywhere
Minor — 1 finding(s)
- Off the main sequence: lottery-common
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-7d2187c33f64408b8ca6f1e8bccd5299/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-7d2187c33f64408b8ca6f1e8bccd5299/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 . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 16 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| 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 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/.forgejo/.gitea workflows, .circleci, .buildkite, .woodpecker, .teamcity, .gitlab-ci.yml, .travis.yml, bitbucket-pipelines.yml, .drone.yml, .cirrus.yml, .woodpecker.yml, appveyor.yml, azure-pipelines*.yml, .pipelines/, .vsts-ci/, .azuredevops/, Jenkinsfile); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 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 | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm . | 0 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |