Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
gautema/CQRSlite carries serious gaps (50%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Security (94%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Architecture (81%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (36%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (49%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality (ADR Quality); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure).
For scale: Small (~3,446 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Security foundation (94%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
74%
Fair · gated by X5
Architecture
81%
Fair · gated by AX2
Maturity
49%
Poor · gated by M2
Readiness
36%
Poor · gated by P1, P3
Security
94% ★
Exemplary
Performance
67%
Fair
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 12%Plumbing 46%Tests 41%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,100–€10,000
| Cost to rebuild | €2,100–€10,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 50% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 59% boilerplate · 19% straight-line · 21% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,200 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 36% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
2
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
3
Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
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 Readiness at 36%. 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: Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. The rest can wait behind it.
Architecture — module dependency graph
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
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
8.9
D18 · .NET / C#
Solution Shape
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X2 · Repo
Cancellation propagation
8.9
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
9.5
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
7.8
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX10 · Repo
Code composition
8.7
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX4 · Repo
Dependency direction
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
At a glance — Performance
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 3 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Top priorities: Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality; Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale; Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +4.2 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +3.3 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +2.5 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions. | +2.2 pts | Medium | Benchmark discipline |
| On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit. | +2.2 pts | Medium | Allocation hygiene |
| Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. | +1.1 pts | Low | Dependency Vulnerabilities |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +2.1 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`. | +1.5 pts | Medium | Nullable reference types |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sample/CQRSCode/WriteModel/Domain/InventoryItem.cs | 6.0 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: Dead code: Apply |
| Framework/CQRSlite/Domain/Repository.cs | 7.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: ObsoleteWithCallers |
| Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Caching/When_evicting_cache_entry.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: Should_not_throw_if_no_lock |
| Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Domain/When_adding_aggregates_to_repository.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: Should_not_throw_if_object_already_tracked |
| Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Routing/When_publishing_events.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions: Should_work_with_no_handlers |
| Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Domain/When_saving_using_repository_with_event_publisher.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: BarePragmaDisable |
| Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Substitutes/TestSnapshotAggregate.cs | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: Dead code: Apply |
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. 47 of 47 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); none rely on LLM judgement. Overall confidence is 0.7 — 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 — 47 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D20D26D27D28D29D30AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4AX5AX6AX8ED5GD1IC1M1M2M3P1P10P3P6PF1PF2PF3X1X2X3X4X5
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, 19 of 62 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | 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 | openai-compatible | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D21 Naming Consistency — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — evaluation did not complete — Dimension evaluation failed — excluded from the score.
- D24 Comment Value — LLM provider failed — The model provider was unreachable or errored, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
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 (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- 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.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- D27 Navigability: Indirection/navigability is structural — it measures hops to follow a call, not whether that indirection buys real flexibility or just ceremony.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- 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 ADVISORY: an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being unhealthy.
- ED5 Idempotency: Idempotency is judged from the handler body's visible writes and guards — a guard enforced by a database unique constraint, a broker's exactly-once delivery, or a domain method whose no-op-when-applied logic the scan can't follow may read as at-risk; the at-risk candidates are confirmed by a SAMPLED LLM verdict (advisory, not exhaustive) and degrade to heuristic-only when no model is configured. It flags the at-least-once double-apply SHAPE, not a runtime proof of a duplicate effect.
- 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
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
7 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 22 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: InventoryItem (LCOM4 4)Sample/CQRSCode/WriteModel/Domain/InventoryItem.cs:7
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
101 test methods: 101 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Unit tests
Integration tests
BDD tests
E2E tests
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 3 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 101 tests.
No assertions: Should_not_throw_if_no_lock Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Caching/When_evicting_cache_entry.cs:35
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 2 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
14 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 3 deprecated packages.
Deprecated: xunit
Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory
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 8 packages use a banned license.
Licenses scanned
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
3 deducted debt markers + 6 dead symbols across 3446 LoC (0.6/KLoC) → score 8.9.
Dead code: Apply Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Substitutes/TestSnapshotAggregate.cs:33
ObsoleteWithCallers Framework/CQRSlite/Domain/Repository.cs:31
BarePragmaDisableFramework/CQRSlite.Tests/Domain/When_saving_using_repository_with_event_publisher.cs:19
Justified suppression Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Caching/When_getting_fails.cs:26
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Dead code finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with InventoryItem.cs (2), TestSnapshotAggregate.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 ObsoleteWithCallers finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Repository.cs (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 BarePragmaDisable finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with When_saving_using_repository_with_event_publisher.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
7 projects, 170 .cs files, 5886 hand-written lines of code (3446 production / 2440 test), 8 inter-project edges.
CQRSlite(netstandard2.0) (Production)Framework/CQRSlite/CQRSlite.csproj
CQRSlite(net9.0) (Production)Framework/CQRSlite/CQRSlite.csproj
CQRSlite.Tests (Test)Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/CQRSlite.Tests.csproj
CQRSlite.Tests.Extensions (Test)Framework/CQRSlite.Tests.Extensions/CQRSlite.Tests.Extensions.csproj
CQRSCode (Production)Sample/CQRSCode/CQRSCode.csproj
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs 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).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 7 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
90 % of calls cross a namespace and 15 % go through an interface, but 69 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 7.8/10. — 90 % of calls cross a namespace and 15 % go through an interface, but 69 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
3 vulnerable package(s): 0 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 9.0.1
What to do
- Resolve the 3 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX2 · Stateful singletons
- `Router` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_routes; e.g. `_routes` at line 24). — Router.cs:15
- `InMemoryEventStore` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_inMemoryDb; e.g. `_inMemoryDb` at line 28). — InMemoryEventStore.cs:10
- `MemoryCache` is a singleton (one shared instance) but mutates instance state outside any lock (_optionsFactory; e.g. `_optionsFactory` at line 50). — MemoryCache.cs:11
What to do
- Keep singletons stateless or back their state with thread-safe types (Concurrent*/Immutable*); otherwise concurrent callers race.
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?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
ED5 · Idempotency
- `Handlers.InventoryCommandHandlers.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no visible idempotency guard. Under a client retry or at-least-once redelivery a re-run could double-apply it — confirm it's safe to re-run, or add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. (Configure an LLM to auto-classify this.) — InventoryCommandHandlers.cs:23
What to do
- Make retry-prone mutations idempotent — guard each write with an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write, so a re-run doesn't double-apply.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
- Only 4/7 projects share a common root namespace — the code's module identity is inconsistent.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
- Adopt a consistent root-namespace convention (a shared prefix, e.g. Acme.*); short project-file/directory names are fine as long as the RootNamespace is uniform.
Do you agree with this assessment?
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P10 · Library API & versioning
- 107/117 types (91%) are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — make internal-by-default and expose only the intended API.
What to do
- Make types internal by default; expose only the deliberate public API so internals can change without breaking consumers.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- 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?
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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF1 · Benchmark discipline
- No BenchmarkDotNet suite was found. For a performance-sensitive library, a benchmark guards against silent regressions — but it's a bonus here, not a deduction.
What to do
- Add a BenchmarkDotNet project for the hot paths (with [MemoryDiagnoser] to track allocations), and run it in CI to catch regressions.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF2 · Allocation hygiene
- No Span/Memory, pooling (ArrayPool/ObjectPool), stackalloc, ValueTask or buffer-writer usage was found. If this library sits on a hot path, these reduce the GC pressure it puts on its host — a bonus, not a requirement.
What to do
- On hot paths, prefer Span<T>/ReadOnlySpan<T>, ArrayPool<T>, stackalloc and ValueTask to cut allocations a consumer would otherwise inherit.
Do you agree with this assessment?
PF3 · Async & latency hygiene
- Only 50/71 awaits use ConfigureAwait(false). A library that captures the caller's context can stall or deadlock its host — the classic way a dependency drags an app down.
What to do
- In library code, append .ConfigureAwait(false) to every await (or set <ConfigureAwait>false</ConfigureAwait> / use the analyzer CA2007) so the library never captures the host's context.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 26/32 async methods accept a CancellationToken, so requests can't be cancelled cleanly under load or on client disconnect. In Blazor Server circuits and other short-write hosts, omitting it can be an accepted convention — judge against your hosting model.
- No CancellationToken parameter — work can't be cancelled cleanly on disconnect/shutdown. (×6) — InventoryCommandHandlers.cs:23, HomeController.cs:23, HomeController.cs:30, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/2 projects enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable>. NRTs catch a whole class of null-deref bugs at compile time.
What to do
- Enable <Nullable>enable</Nullable> across all projects and resolve warnings rather than suppressing with `!`.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 74% | Fair — gated by X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 81% | Fair — gated by AX2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 49% | Poor — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 36% | Poor — gated by P1, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 94% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Performance | 67% | Fair | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
Not included — 45 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.
- 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
- 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.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D21 Naming Consistency — LLM evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — Dimension evaluation failed
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Dimension evaluation failed
- D24 Comment Value — LLM evaluation failed
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D31 IaC & Container Security — Not applicable
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — Not applicable
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D35 Change Coupling — no production change history to mine for change-coupling
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — Not applicable
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — Not applicable
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not applicable
- D7 Architectural Integrity — No checkable ADRs to assess
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 2/3 markers (3 aggregate root(s) (AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot); a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — only 2/3 markers (2 event handler(s); 11 CQRS handler(s))
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — only 1/3 markers (1 aggregate(s) with Apply/When folds)
- M4 Documentation accuracy — LLM accuracy check could not reach the model — accuracy is advisory and stays neutral.
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P2 Observability — This repo is a library, not a deployed service — it has no process to operate, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. A library may log via an injected ILogger, but the absence of operational telemetry is not a defect here. If it grows a host (web API, worker), the dimension reactivates.
- 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
- 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 — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- 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.
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 8 finding(s)
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions: Should_not_throw_if_no_lock Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Caching/When_evicting_cache_entry.cs:35
- No assertions: Should_not_throw_if_object_already_tracked Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Domain/When_adding_aggregates_to_repository.cs:29
- No assertions: Should_work_with_no_handlers Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Routing/When_publishing_events.cs:39
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 9.0.1
- High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- Dimension evaluation failed
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Dimension evaluation failed
Warning — 16 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: xunit
- Deprecated: xunit
D17 · Explicit Debt
- Dead code: Apply Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Substitutes/TestSnapshotAggregate.cs:33
- Dead code: Apply Sample/CQRSCode/WriteModel/Domain/InventoryItem.cs:11
- Dead code: Apply Sample/CQRSCode/WriteModel/Domain/InventoryItem.cs:16
D17 · Explicit Debt
- ObsoleteWithCallers Framework/CQRSlite/Domain/Repository.cs:31
- ObsoleteWithCallers Framework/CQRSlite/Domain/Repository.cs:31
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D17 · Explicit Debt
- BarePragmaDisable Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Domain/When_saving_using_repository_with_event_publisher.cs:19
D19 · Documentation Quality
- LLM evaluation failed
D21 · Naming Consistency
- LLM evaluation failed
D24 · Comment Value
- LLM evaluation failed
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: InventoryItem (LCOM4 4) Sample/CQRSCode/WriteModel/Domain/InventoryItem.cs:7
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 10 finding(s)
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D25 · ADR Conformance
- no ADRs to check
D31 · IaC & Container Security
- Not applicable
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)
- Not applicable
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
- Not applicable
D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
- Not applicable
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Not applicable
D7 · Architectural Integrity
- No checkable ADRs to assess
Info — 28 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory
- Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory
- Outdated: Microsoft.SourceLink.GitHub
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: xunit
- Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: xunit
- Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio
- Outdated: Scrutor
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: xunit
- Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio
D17 · Explicit Debt
- Justified suppression Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Caching/When_getting_fails.cs:26
- Justified suppression Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/Caching/When_saving_fails.cs:26
D14 · License Compliance
- Licenses scanned
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSlite(netstandard2.0) (Production) Framework/CQRSlite/CQRSlite.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSlite(net9.0) (Production) Framework/CQRSlite/CQRSlite.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSlite.Tests (Test) Framework/CQRSlite.Tests/CQRSlite.Tests.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSlite.Tests.Extensions (Test) Framework/CQRSlite.Tests.Extensions/CQRSlite.Tests.Extensions.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSCode (Production) Sample/CQRSCode/CQRSCode.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSWeb (Production) Sample/CQRSWeb/CQRSWeb.csproj
D18 · Solution Shape
- CQRSTest (Test) Sample/CQRSTest/CQRSTest.csproj
D9 · Test Distribution
- Unit tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- Integration tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- BDD tests
D9 · Test Distribution
- E2E tests
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list CQRSlite.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 3 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); 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, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |