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.
gvolpe/trading is sound in substance but carries real gaps (53%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Code Health (100%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Domain Modelling (100%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Maturity (44%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Accessibility (53%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness (Knowledge Freshness); Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately (Folder & project structure).
For scale: Small (~4,760 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Code Health foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Raise Maturity 44 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 53 → ~59.
New since the last scan (19+)
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml
- D29 · High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0125 ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/infra/redis-deployment.yaml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/infra/redis-deployment.yaml
- D31 · Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/infra/redis-deployment.yaml
- D36 · Workflow token permissions not restricted
- D38 · High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,300–€12,000
| Cost to rebuild | €2,300–€12,000 |
| Domain complexity | Standard |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 53% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€7,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Maturity at 44% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
At a glance — Accessibility
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 50 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 18 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 7 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
Begin by establishing an ADR log to record significant architectural decisions and their rationale. Next, address dormant codebase findings to improve knowledge freshness, and reorganize the project structure by grouping production code under a src/ directory to separate it from tooling. Finally, update the root README with a high-level 'Architecture' or 'How it works' section to clarify the system's shape and resolve outstanding documentation quality issues.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +7.5 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Resolve the 1 The Services outline lists Lib/Domain/Core/Feed/Forecasts/Processor/Snap… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. | +5.4 pts | Low | Documentation Quality |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +7.9 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. | +6.9 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape. | +5.9 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video. | +4.0 pts | Medium | Text alternatives |
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +4.0 pts | Medium | Page structure |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +4.0 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| modules/ws-client/yarn.lock | 1.4 | Slop | OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities: High CVE: [GHSA redacted] |
| ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml | 1.8 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml | 1.9 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml | 3.1 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml | 3.1 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml | 3.1 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml | 3.1 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml | 3.1 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| ops/infra/redis-deployment.yaml | 3.3 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: KSV-0014 |
| .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml | 4.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml | 5.1 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| modules/Dockerfile | 5.8 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| modules/ws-client/src/main/scala/trading/client/Update.scala | 8.0 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Update.scala ↔ Dependencies.scala |
| modules/ws-client/src/main/scala/trading/client/Model.scala | 8.0 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Boundary-crossing change coupling: Model.scala ↔ Dependencies.scala |
| modules/forecasts/src/main/scala/trading/forecasts/store/AuthorStore.scala | 8.5 | Near-clean | Change Coupling: Change coupling: AuthorStore.scala ↔ ForecastStore.scala |
| README.md | 9.5 | Near-clean | Documentation Quality: The Services outline lists Lib/Domain/Core/Feed/Forecasts/Processor/Snapshots/Alerts/WS Server/Tracing, but none are described in detail. |
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. 27 of 29 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 29 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, 79 of 93 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · 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 | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D30 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
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- 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").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- D40 Network Egress Confinement: Egress confinement is read from committed Kubernetes manifests — a policy applied out-of-band (cluster-default deny, a service mesh, or a cloud firewall/security group off-repo) is invisible, and a present NetworkPolicy is declared config, not proof the cluster admission-controller actually enforces it at runtime.
- D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement: Syscall/MAC confinement is read from committed manifests — a profile applied by a cluster-wide PodSecurity default or a mutating webhook off-repo isn't seen, and a declared seccomp/AppArmor profile is config presence, not proof the node's kernel actually loaded and enforced it.
- AC1 Text alternatives: Alt-text is detected structurally — the scan sees that an alternative EXISTS, not whether it meaningfully describes the image, and decorative-vs-missing is judged by attribute shape; runtime-injected images and a non-role=img decorative svg are out of scope. This is accessibility readiness, never a WCAG conformance claim.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
- P4 Deployment & Rollback: Approval/branch-protection rules live in repository settings the scan cannot see — only their in-repo evidence (config files, workflows) is checked, so a control enforced purely in the host's settings reads as "not evidenced".
- P5 DR & Backup: Backup/restore and disaster-recovery readiness is judged from in-repo evidence — a config that exists is not a tested restore, so the absence of positive evidence is reported as "not evidenced", never scored as present.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D16 · Bus Factor
No source file's living knowledge is concentrated in a single author.
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README is a solid reference for the trading application's CI status and an outline of topics (Web App, Overview, Requirements, Services, Monitoring, Topic compaction), with the Web App section fleshed out to show Elm build commands and a client screenshot. The document is complete per its own outline but lacks coverage of the other listed topics such as building Docker images, running dependencies (Redis/Kafka), and the full service list (Lib/Domain/Core/Feed/Forecasts/Processor/Snapshots/Alerts/WS Server/Tracing).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 The Services outline lists Lib/Domain/Core/Feed/Forecasts/Processor/Snap… finding(s) in Documentation Quality — start with README.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
18 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 8 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 10 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with ci-backend.yml (4), ci-frontend.yml (3), ci-tyrian.yml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
- Resolve the 8 Medium finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with alerts-deployment.yaml, forecasts-deployment.yaml, processor-deployment.yaml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (8 warning-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
89 finding(s): 0 critical, 10 high, 31 medium, 48 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 31 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with alerts-deployment.yaml (4), forecasts-deployment.yaml (4), processor-deployment.yaml (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 warning-level).
- Resolve the 10 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (2), alerts-deployment.yaml, forecasts-deployment.yaml. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (10 issue-level).
- Resolve the 9 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with alerts-deployment.yaml (6), forecasts-deployment.yaml (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 recommendation-level).
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
22 of 23 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is modules/x-demo/src/main/scala/demo/tracer/TraceApp.scala.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Dormant codebase finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
Strongest change-coupling: AuthorStore.scala↔ForecastStore.scala 60%; Update.scala↔Dependencies.scala 57%; Model.scala↔Dependencies.scala 54%
D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing
0/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Unpinned build actions finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Workflow token permissions not restricted finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 No build provenance finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities
7 finding(s): 0 critical, 5 high, 2 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 4 High CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with yarn.lock (4). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 High vulnerability finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with yarn.lock. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Medium CVE finding(s) in OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — start with yarn.lock (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
D40 · Network Egress Confinement
1/2 network-egress controls present (network policy, egress restriction).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No egress restriction finding(s) in Network Egress Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement
0/2 syscall-confinement controls present (seccomp, AppArmor/SELinux).
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No seccomp profile finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 No AppArmor/SELinux confinement finding(s) in Kernel & Syscall Confinement. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC1 · Text alternatives
- An image with no alt (and no aria-label/aria-labelledby) is unreadable to assistive tech. Add alt — alt="" if it's purely decorative. (×2) — index.html:19, index.html:21
What to do
- Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, an aria-label or inner fallback content on canvas, and a captions <track> on video.
AC2 · Forms & labels
AC3 · Page structure
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×2) — index.html:2, index.html:2
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add an a11y linter that can read your UI — no component framework was detected, so the JSX/Vue ESLint plugins would have nothing to lint; use an HTML-template a11y linter (html-eslint, htmlhint) or run axe/pa11y over the rendered pages, assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 1 of 1 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Production code isn't grouped under a src/ folder — it's spread across several top-level directories, so there's no one place that says 'this is the product'.
- Tests aren't grouped in a dedicated test folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
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 tests in the folder your build system expects (tests/, test/, spec/, or your module's test source set) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
M4 · Documentation accuracy
P1 · CI/CD gates
P3 · Security & performance tooling
What to do
- Your ecosystem's static analyzer is declared as a dependency but is not wired into CI — run it as a required step on push/PR (e.g. `composer phpstan` / `mix sobelow` / `bundle exec brakeman` / the spotbugs Gradle task / `sbt scalafixAll --check` / `golangci-lint run` / `rebar3 lint`) so a regression fails the build instead of relying on someone running it locally.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
What to do
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup
What to do
- Document RTO/RPO and a tested restore procedure (a backup config alone isn't disaster recovery).
- No persistence guard on critical data stores — use Docker named volumes (or your orchestrator's persistent-volume equivalent) so the data store can't be wiped by a container recreate (or, in cloud, set purge-protection / soft-delete / prevent_destroy).
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC1 · Text alternatives | 1.1.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.5 | Partial signal |
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Architecture | 95% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 44% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 59% | Adequate — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 55% | Adequate — gated by D29, D31, D36 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Accessibility | 53% | Adequate | Acceptable, with room to improve. |
Not included — 72 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No styled element found in the parsed markup — AC6 not applicable here.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over the .NET document set and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over the .NET project-reference graph and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over the .NET project-reference graph and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from the .NET project graph (projects, types, namespaces) and no such graph was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over the .NET type surface and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution 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 — not assessed — test isolation is computed from the .NET project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) and no such graph was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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.
- C3 Audit Trail — Not assessed: these audit controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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 C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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.
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.scala) had no cyclomatic complexity computed for it, so cyclomatic complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~1535 lines of test source are present (.scala) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (an sbt build (build.sbt)), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots — complexity unreadable for .scala — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- 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.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity — Most of this repository's production source (.scala) had no cognitive complexity computed for it, so cognitive complexity was not measured — whatever else this pass did read is not this repository's complexity. Not scored: no method bodies were exposed for those file kinds by any language model this pass could load. This is a gap in the analysis run, not a finding about this repository.
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.scala) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["Acme.Catalog"]`.
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (an sbt build (build.sbt) — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- 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.
- D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .scala, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.scala) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM1 Aggregate boundaries — not scored for TypeScript: a class holding another class reads the same whether the inner type is an aggregate or a value object, so this cannot be decided from source without guessing — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — not scored for TypeScript: branded ids (`type Id = string & { __brand }`) are an uncommon idiom, so a bare-string id is not on its own evidence of a missing typed id — reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — not scored for TypeScript: a domain type used across packages is indistinguishable in source from a deliberate shared-kernel package, so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model — not scored for TypeScript: telling a rich domain entity from an anemic data holder needs the behaviour a source-only read cannot always attribute (components, DTOs and readonly value objects are all legitimately data-shaped), so this is reported as guidance rather than measured
- DM5 Encapsulated state — not scored for TypeScript: the language already steers state behind #private/private/readonly, so a mutable public field is rare enough that we report this as guidance rather than measuring it
- DM7 Repository granularity — not scored for TypeScript: deciding whether a repository belongs to an aggregate root needs the aggregate structure, which source alone does not state — reported as guidance rather than measured
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not scored — this repository shows none of the 3 signals this check looks for
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from 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
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (`sbt clean coverage test coverageReport` via sbt-scoverage) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from C# source (attributes, middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) and no C# source was loaded for this repository — because it is written in another language, or the solution failed to load. Absence of a .NET idiom 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.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X1 Async correctness — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X2 Cancellation propagation — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X3 Exception handling — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X4 Structured logging — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- X5 Nullable reference types — not analysed — these correctness checks are read from C# source and none was loaded for this repository, because it is written in another language or the solution failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 27 finding(s)
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml:27
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml:30
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml:38
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-backend.yml:41
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml:24
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-frontend.yml:27
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml:21
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml:24
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/ci-tyrian.yml:27
- High IaC: DS-0002 modules/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0017 modules/Dockerfile
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml
- High IaC: KSV-0014 ops/infra/redis-deployment.yaml
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
- High CVE: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: Update.scala ↔ Dependencies.scala modules/ws-client/src/main/scala/trading/client/Update.scala
- Boundary-crossing change coupling: Model.scala ↔ Dependencies.scala modules/ws-client/src/main/scala/trading/client/Model.scala
- High vulnerability: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
Warning — 44 finding(s)
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0012 ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0013 ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0104 ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml
- Medium IaC: KSV-0001 ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml:47
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml:45
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/apps/processor-deployment.yaml:47
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/apps/snapshots-deployment.yaml:47
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/apps/tracing-deployment.yaml:47
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/apps/ws-server-deployment.yaml:45
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/infra/pulsar-deployment.yaml:43
- Medium: allow-privilege-escalation-no-securitycontext ops/infra/redis-deployment.yaml:40
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
- Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] modules/ws-client/yarn.lock
- Change coupling: AuthorStore.scala ↔ ForecastStore.scala modules/forecasts/src/main/scala/trading/forecasts/store/AuthorStore.scala
- Unpinned build actions
- Workflow token permissions not restricted
Recommendation — 20 finding(s)
- Low IaC: KSV-0003 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0011 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0015 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0016 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0018 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0110 ops/apps/alerts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0003 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0011 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Low IaC: KSV-0015 ops/apps/forecasts-deployment.yaml
- Test reliability not included
- complexity unreadable for .scala — churn × complexity hotspots could not be measured
- The Services outline lists Lib/Domain/Core/Feed/Forecasts/Processor/Snapshots/Alerts/WS Server/Tracing, but none are described in detail. README.md
- Dormant codebase
- No build provenance
- No artifact signing
- No SBOM
- No egress restriction
- No seccomp profile
- No AppArmor/SELinux confinement
- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
Info — 2 finding(s)
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 18 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 89 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 7 | artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json |
| D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement | runtime-hardening | — | runtime-hardening: not applicable — The repository ships application workloads but no cluster-governance resources (CRDs, admission webhooks, or a committed policy engine). Runtime threat-detection (Falco/Tetragon) and admission control (Kyverno/OPA-Gatekeeper/PodSecurity) are cluster-OPERATOR controls owned by the platform, not shipped by an application repo/chart — nothing for this repo to assess. | 0 | — |