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.
hamed-shirbandi/TaskoMask carries serious risk (37%). Several issues below can materially affect reliability, security, or the cost of change and warrant near-term attention.
It is strongest in Event-Driven (90%) — its messaging keeps components properly decoupled.
Most urgent: a critical security exposure was detected (see the Security & Compliance lens). Treat it as a priority regardless of the overall grade.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (29%) — operating, monitoring and recovering the system safely is harder. Accessibility (35%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO… (DR & Backup); `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your… (Outbound HTTP resilience); readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green)… (Deployment & Rollback).
For scale: Small (~15,431 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.2 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Event-Driven foundation (90%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Raise Readiness 29 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 37 → ~44.
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €8,600–€42,000
| Cost to rebuild | €8,600–€42,000 |
| Domain complexity | Very high |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 37% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · 64% boilerplate · 31% straight-line · 5% branching logic |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.2 person-years of build effort (about ~€25,000 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 29% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Trajectory
Architecture — bounded-context dependency graph
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 — Event-Driven
At a glance — Accessibility
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 42 | High / Critical |
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 26 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, codify backup and geo-recovery in infrastructure as code, documenting recovery time and procedure to ensure true disaster resilience. Next, implement HTTP resilience policies to prevent flaky dependencies from taking the application down. Then, add readiness and liveness probes with an automated rollback strategy to catch and reverse bad releases. Finally, resolve the three deprecated dependencies and two vulnerable dependencies to improve overall hygiene.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +6.8 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +6.3 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
| Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery. | +7.1 pts | Medium | DR & Backup |
| Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down. | +7.1 pts | Medium | Outbound HTTP resilience |
| Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically. | +6.9 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| 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. | +6.1 pts | Medium | Idempotency |
| Raise domain coverage toward 100% — cover the remaining aggregates / value objects / domain services where the business invariants and costly bugs live. | +5.8 pts | Medium | Domain vs controller coverage |
| Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production. | +5.0 pts | Medium | Observability |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| src/1-BuildingBlocks/Web/Web.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Contracts.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Aggregator.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Tasks.Write.Api.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Tasks.Read.Api.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Owners.Write.Api.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Owners.Read.Api.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Boards.Write.Api.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Boards.Read.Api.csproj | 5.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: NoWarnInCsproj |
| src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Dockerfile.original | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Dockerfile | 6.5 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
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. 78 of 80 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 0.7 — 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 — 80 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, 104 of 206 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 | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, 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.
- 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.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- 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.
- D16 Bus Factor: Bus-factor is a time-decayed model of commit attribution (who has recently, repeatedly worked a file), not comprehension — pairing, review and reading-without-committing spread knowledge it can't see; bot commits and shared accounts still distort it.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (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.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D24 Comment Value: Comment value (WHY vs WHAT) is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it is advisory and cannot weigh a comment against the precise code change it was written to explain.
- D26 Project Cohesion: Project focus is sized from members/namespaces per project — a project that is broad by deliberate design reads the same as one that has sprawled.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics: Keyboard semantics are inferred from markup attributes — interactivity wired purely in script, focus managed at runtime, and component-level handlers are invisible. A clean result means "no static keyboard-trap shape", not a keyboard-operability proof.
- AC5 ARIA correctness: ARIA correctness is checked against the static role/attribute shape — roles/attributes set dynamically aren't seen, a valid role says nothing about whether it matches the element's real behaviour, and required-state checks are suppressed when a JSX spread could supply them.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- 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.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- AX9 CQS / query purity: Handlers are found by interface/name convention — a query handler using neither is not seen. Mutation is a resolved write/publish invocation (SaveChanges/repository/bus), so a write hidden behind a hand-rolled wrapper, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-persistence type and isn't flagged; it detects that a query writes state, not whether the write is a legitimate read-side cache update. Clean means "no resolved write/publish in a query body", not a proof of CQS purity.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
3 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D5 · Coupling
37 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 40 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
D8 · Code Coverage
Line coverage 35.9%.
What to do
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D9 · Test Distribution
102 test methods: 65 unit, 37 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 0 zero-assertion, 1 mock references across 102 tests.
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 3 measured tier(s). unit: measured (0 flaky); integration: not included — too large to re-run within its budget; e2e: measured (0 flaky); other: measured (0 flaky).
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
55 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 3 deprecated packages.
What to do
- Resolve the 3 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 67 packages use a banned license.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D16 · Bus Factor
37 source file(s) have their living knowledge concentrated in one author (≥90% of recent, decayed contribution). The largest is src/6-Build/Build.cs.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off-boarding risk finding(s) in Bus Factor. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D17 · Explicit Debt
63 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 14560 LoC (3.8/KLoC) → score 2.5.
What to do
- Resolve the 56 NoWarnInCsproj finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Aggregator.csproj (6), Boards.Read.Api.csproj (6), Boards.Write.Api.csproj (6). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (56 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with Startup.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.
D18 · Solution Shape
37 projects, 624 .cs files, 20325 hand-written lines of code (14560 production / 5765 test), plus 2114 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 197 inter-project edges (build failed).
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D21 · Naming Consistency
3 naming inconsistencies across 200 sampled symbols.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Typo in class name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Typo in method name finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 The provided list does not show a clear case of the SAME concept having… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D24 · Comment Value
32 valuable / 1 redundant across 200 sampled comments; 1 shown with locations.
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 37 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
D27 · Navigability
89 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 96 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 8.3/10. — 89 % of calls cross a namespace and 13 % go through an interface, but 96 % of collaborators are co-located — so a call's collaborators sit together and tracing stays easy. Baseline: medium — clean/modular boundaries expected.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
26 vulnerable package(s): 1 critical, 14 high, 11 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 14 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level).
- Resolve the 11 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
42 finding(s): 0 critical, 21 high, 0 medium, 21 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 21 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (11), Dockerfile.original (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 issue-level).
- Resolve the 21 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (11), Dockerfile.original (10). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (21 recommendation-level).
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
50 of 51 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Domain/Owners/Entities/Owner.cs.
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
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
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.cshtml:7, Index.cshtml:20
What to do
- Add a text alternative — alt on images (alt="" for purely decorative ones), a title or aria-label on meaningful svg, and a captions <track> on video.
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×2) — Index.cshtml:13, Index.cshtml:17
- This control has no associated label. Add a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label / aria-labelledby so assistive tech can name it. (×4) — AddBoard.razor:17, AddBoard.razor:26, AddProject.razor:15, …
- A link with no text, aria-label or labelled child (e.g. an icon-only link) has no accessible name, so assistive tech can't say where it goes. Add visible text or an aria-label. (×4) — Projects.razor:16, Boards.razor:15, NavMenu.razor:17, …
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
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>. — _Layout.cshtml:3
- Skipping heading levels breaks the document outline assistive tech relies on. Don't jump levels — increase by at most one. — Index.cshtml:18
- A page with no <title> gives no name in the tab, history or screen-reader page list. Add a descriptive <title> in <head>. — _Layout.cshtml:0
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.
AC4 · Keyboard semantics
- An <a> with no href, role or tabindex isn't focusable or keyboard-activatable. Give it a real href, or use a <button> for an action. (×17) — Breadcrumb.razor:25, Cards.razor:14, Tasks.razor:7, …
What to do
- Make custom controls keyboard-operable (role + tabindex + key handler), drop positive tabindex, and give anchors a real href.
AC5 · ARIA correctness
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y / vuejs-accessibility) 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 eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y (or vuejs-accessibility), assert with jest-axe / playwright-axe in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
AX1 · Captive dependencies
AX10 · Code composition
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
AX4 · Dependency direction
AX5 · Architecture & structure
AX6 · Interface segregation
AX7 · Slice cohesion
AX8 · Test isolation
- `Boards.Write.Tests.Base` (production) references the test project `Test`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
- `Owners.Write.Tests.Base` (production) references the test project `Test`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
- `Tasks.Write.Tests.Base` (production) references the test project `Test`. Production must never depend on test code — it pulls a unit-test framework and test fixtures into the shipped product and inverts the only correct direction (tests depend on production, never the reverse). Move any shared helper into a production support library, or invert the reference.
What to do
- Remove every production → test project reference: extract any shared test helper into a production support library (which the tests reference), or invert the dependency so the test project depends on production — not the reverse.
AX9 · CQS / query purity
- `RegisterOwner.RegiserOwnerUseCase` is a read (query) handler but its body writes persistent state — a query must stay side-effect-free so reads are safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica. — RegisterOwnerUseCase.cs:15
What to do
- Keep query handlers read-only — move the writes/event-publishes into a command handler so reads stay safe to retry, cache, and route to a read replica.
C1 · Data Protection
- No data-protection or encryption usage (ASP.NET Data Protection, AES, column encryption, PBKDF2) was found — sensitive data at rest may be unprotected. If TDE/KMS/vault is delegated to infrastructure, ignore.
What to do
- Encrypt sensitive data at rest (ASP.NET Core Data Protection / column encryption) and manage keys in a vault. Skip if delegated to infra (Postgres TDE, KMS, etc.).
C2 · Access Controls
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
DM2 · Strongly-typed ids
- `DomainEvent.EntityId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct EntityId { String Value }`). — DomainEvent.cs:19
- `OrganizationAddedEvent.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — OrganizationAddedEvent.cs:20
- `ProjectAddedEvent.OrganizationId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrganizationId { String Value }`). — ProjectAddedEvent.cs:21
- `ProjectAddedEvent.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — ProjectAddedEvent.cs:22
- `Organization.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — Organization.cs:23
- `Project.OrganizationId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrganizationId { String Value }`). — Project.cs:23
- `Project.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — Project.cs:26
- `Board.ProjectId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ProjectId { String Value }`). — Board.cs:23
- `Board.OrganizationId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrganizationId { String Value }`). — Board.cs:24
- `Board.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — Board.cs:25
- `Card.BoardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BoardId { String Value }`). — Card.cs:24
- `Card.ProjectId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ProjectId { String Value }`). — Card.cs:26
- `Card.OrganizationId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrganizationId { String Value }`). — Card.cs:27
- `Card.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — Card.cs:28
- `BoardAddedEvent.ProjectId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ProjectId { String Value }`). — BoardAddedEvent.cs:20
- `CardAddedEvent.BoardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BoardId { String Value }`). — CardAddedEvent.cs:21
- `Activity.TaskId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct TaskId { String Value }`). — Activity.cs:16
- `Comment.TaskId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct TaskId { String Value }`). — Comment.cs:25
- `Task.CardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CardId { String Value }`). — Task.cs:25
- `Task.BoardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BoardId { String Value }`). — Task.cs:26
- `Task.ProjectId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct ProjectId { String Value }`). — Task.cs:27
- `Task.OrganizationId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OrganizationId { String Value }`). — Task.cs:28
- `Task.OwnerId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct OwnerId { String Value }`). — Task.cs:29
- `CommentAddedEvent.TaskId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct TaskId { String Value }`). — CommentAddedEvent.cs:18
- `TaskAddedEvent.CardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CardId { String Value }`). — TaskAddedEvent.cs:21
- `TaskAddedEvent.BoardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct BoardId { String Value }`). — TaskAddedEvent.cs:22
- `TaskMovedToAnotherCardEvent.TaskId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct TaskId { String Value }`). — TaskMovedToAnotherCardEvent.cs:15
- `TaskMovedToAnotherCardEvent.CardId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id (`readonly record struct CardId { String Value }`). — TaskMovedToAnotherCardEvent.cs:16
What to do
- Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.
DM3 · Integration-event coupling
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
- `AggregateRoot` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — AggregateRoot.cs:10
- `BaseEntity` is an aggregate/entity with 1 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — BaseEntity.cs:8
- `Organization` is an aggregate/entity with 3 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Organization.cs:7
- `Owner` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Owner.cs:10
- `Project` is an aggregate/entity with 5 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Project.cs:7
- `Board` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Board.cs:7
- `Card` is an aggregate/entity with 7 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Card.cs:8
- `Activity` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Activity.cs:6
- `Comment` is an aggregate/entity with 2 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Comment.cs:10
- `Task` is an aggregate/entity with 9 data propert(ies) but no state-changing behaviour (only data and queries) — the business logic lives in a service. — Task.cs:8
What to do
- Move business rules onto the aggregates/entities they govern so invariants are enforced at the source, not in anemic services.
DM5 · Encapsulated state
- `Organization` exposes public setter(s) (Name, Description, OwnerId). — Organization.cs:7
- `Owner` exposes public setter(s) (DisplayName, Email). — Owner.cs:10
- `Project` exposes public setter(s) (Name, Description, OrganizationId, OrganizationName, OwnerId). — Project.cs:7
- `Board` exposes public setter(s) (Name, Description, ProjectId, OrganizationId, OwnerId, ProjectName, …). — Board.cs:7
- `Card` exposes public setter(s) (Name, Type, BoardId, BoardName, ProjectId, OrganizationId, …). — Card.cs:8
- `Activity` exposes public setter(s) (TaskId, Description). — Activity.cs:6
- `Comment` exposes public setter(s) (Content, TaskId). — Comment.cs:10
- `Task` exposes public setter(s) (Title, Description, CardName, CardId, BoardId, ProjectId, …). — Task.cs:8
What to do
- Make entity setters private/init-only; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
DM7 · Repository granularity
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
ED1 · Handler temporal coupling
ED2 · Event/command shape
ED3 · Event naming
- `DomainEvent` reads as an instruction, not a fact that happened. Events describe something that already occurred — name them in the past tense (e.g. `OrderPlaced`, `PaymentCaptured`) so the ubiquitous language stays clear. — DomainEvent.cs:9
What to do
- Name events in the past tense — they record facts that already happened.
ED4 · Outbox / dual-write
- `EventStoringBehavior.Handle` writes to the database while `UserRegisteredConsumer.ConsumeMessage` publishes to the message bus in the same command-handling flow, with no outbox referenced on either path. Splitting the persist and the publish across sibling methods (or two collaborating actors) doesn't make them atomic — a crash between the two either loses the message or emits a phantom event. Use the transactional outbox pattern so the message is committed in the same transaction as the state change and dispatched afterwards. — EventStoringBehavior.cs:44
What to do
- Adopt the transactional outbox pattern so DB writes and message publishes commit atomically — no lost or phantom events on a crash.
ED5 · Idempotency
- `Exceptions.ManagedExceptionHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — ManagedExceptionHandler.cs:43
- `Exceptions.UnmanagedExceptionHandler.Handle` mutates persistent state (a repository write) with no idempotency guard, and the model confirms a re-run would double-apply it. A retry or at-least-once redelivery means it can run twice — add an exists/dedup check, an upsert, an idempotency-key/inbox, or a versioned write. — UnmanagedExceptionHandler.cs:43
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.
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
- `GetTasksAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetBoardByIdHandler.cs:102
- `GetProjectsAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetOrganizationsByOwnerIdHandler.cs:96
- `GetBoardsAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. (×2) — GetOrganizationsByOwnerIdHandler.cs:113, GetProjectByIdHandler.cs:76
- `GetCommentsAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetTaskByIdHandler.cs:82
- `GetActivitiesAsync` is declared `async` but never awaits anything, so it runs synchronously while pretending to be asynchronous. Drop `async` or do the real async work. — GetTaskByIdHandler.cs:100
- A line of code has been commented out rather than removed — dead weight that rots and confuses. Delete it (version control remembers). (×2) — MongoDbBaseRepository.cs:84, SecurityHeadersAttribute.cs:34
- `OnGet` has an empty body — confirm it's an intentional no-op and not an unfinished method. — Index.cshtml.cs:9
What to do
- Clear the softer debt: remove commented-out code and dead branches, re-enable or delete skipped tests, and replace blanket warning suppressions with targeted ones.
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add a README to the 37 of 37 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
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists
- README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises Kubernetes, but no Kubernetes manifest or chart exists; README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
P1 · CI/CD gates
P11 · BDD / executable specs
P2 · Observability
- Only 13/17 service-like projects use logging (pure contract/DTO projects are excluded — they have nothing to log).
What to do
- Extend structured logging to the remaining service-like projects so the whole executable surface is diagnosable in production.
- Add a health-check endpoint (AddHealthChecks/MapHealthChecks) so orchestrators and load balancers can probe liveness/readiness.
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.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment automation exists but no readiness/liveness probes, rolling-update strategy, lifecycle hooks or migration job were evidenced — a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add readiness/liveness probes and a rolling-update (or blue/green) strategy so a bad release is caught and rolled back automatically.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P5 · DR & Backup
- A persistence guard (data volume / purge-protection) was found, but no backup, geo-recovery or RTO/RPO controls were evidenced — a volume that survives a container recreate is not a tested restore from catastrophic loss.
What to do
- Codify backups + geo-recovery in IaC and document RTO/RPO and the restore procedure — a persistence guard alone is not disaster recovery.
P7 · Outbound HTTP resilience
- The app makes outbound HTTP calls but no resilience handler was detected (Polly / AddStandardResilienceHandler / circuit-breaker). A slow or failing dependency will cascade — add timeouts, retries with back-off, and a circuit breaker.
What to do
- Add `AddStandardResilienceHandler()` (or Polly policies) to your HttpClient registrations so a flaky dependency can't take the app down.
P8 · Schema migrations
P9 · Domain vs controller coverage
What to do
- Raise domain coverage toward 100% — cover the remaining aggregates / value objects / domain services where the business invariants and costly bugs live.
S1 · Web-Security Posture
X1 · Async correctness
- Blocking on a Task with `.Wait()`/`.GetAwaiter().GetResult()` can deadlock (and wastes a thread). Make the caller `async` and `await` instead. (×2) — Startup.cs:66, DbInitialization.cs:36
What to do
- Sync-over-async (deadlock risk)
X2 · Cancellation propagation
- Only 54/178 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. (×25) — Program.cs:8, BoardApiService.cs:30, BoardApiService.cs:39, …
What to do
- Thread a CancellationToken through async methods so work stops promptly on cancellation.
X3 · Exception handling
X4 · Structured logging
X5 · Nullable reference types
- 0/21 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 `!`.
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 |
| AC4 · Keyboard semantics | 2.1.1, 2.4.3 | Partial signal |
| AC5 · ARIA correctness | 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 50% | Adequate — gated by D17, X5 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 66% | Adequate — gated by AX8 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Maturity | 41% | Weak — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 29% | Weak — gated by D12, P3, P5, P7 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 62% | Adequate — gated by D30, D31, C1 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 68% | Adequate — gated by DM2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Event-Driven | 90% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Accessibility | 35% | Weak — gated by AC1, AC4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 25 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C3 Audit Trail — Repo shows no audit-logging mechanism (IAuditable, an immutable audit log, an EF SaveChanges interceptor) for sensitive changes — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Record an audit trail in code (or document where it lives) so this dimension can be scored.
- C4 Data Retention — Repo shows no data-retention / TTL / cleanup mechanism for personal data (event-sourced storage — lifecycle is stream archival / event TTL, not row CASCADE) — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Define retention periods and a purge/cleanup job (or TTL) in code, or document where retention is enforced, so this dimension can be scored.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Repo shows no corroborated data-subject-rights mechanism (erasure / export-portability / consent) tied to a subject id or GDPR vocabulary — absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control. Implement erasure, data export/portability and consent tracking over the subject's records.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — 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.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — No first-party assembly was produced by the build.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no data
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 94 finding(s)
- NoWarnInCsproj — 7 warning codes suppressed in one element src/6-Build/Build.csproj:8
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Web/Web.csproj:11
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Web/Web.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Contracts.csproj:11
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Contracts.csproj:16
- NoWarnInCsproj src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Aggregator.csproj:16
- NoWarnInCsproj src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Aggregator.csproj:21
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Tasks.Write.Api.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Tasks.Write.Api.csproj:20
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Tasks.Read.Api.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Tasks.Read.Api.csproj:20
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Owners.Write.Api.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Owners.Write.Api.csproj:20
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Owners.Read.Api.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Owners.Read.Api.csproj:20
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Boards.Write.Api.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Boards.Write.Api.csproj:20
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Boards.Read.Api.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Boards.Read.Api.csproj:20
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Web/Web.csproj:11
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Web/Web.csproj:15
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Contracts.csproj:11
- NoWarnInCsproj src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Contracts.csproj:16
- NoWarnInCsproj src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Aggregator.csproj:16
- NoWarnInCsproj src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Aggregator.csproj:21
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/ApiGateway/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/ApiGateway/Dockerfile.original
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/4-Clients/UserPanel/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/4-Clients/Website/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 src/4-Clients/Website/Dockerfile.original
- High CVE: AutoMapper 10.1.1
- High CVE: Microsoft.Data.SqlClient 2.1.4
- High CVE: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory 6.0.1
- High CVE: Npgsql 6.0.7
- High CVE: SkiaSharp 2.88.3
- High CVE: Snappier 1.0.0
- High CVE: SQLitePCLRaw.lib.e_sqlite3 2.0.6
- High CVE: System.Net.Http 4.3.0
- High CVE: System.Text.Json 6.0.2
- High CVE: System.Text.RegularExpressions 4.3.0
- High CVE: System.Text.Json 6.0.0
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.3
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 12.0.1
- High CVE: Microsoft.Extensions.Caching.Memory 6.0.0
- Vulnerable: AutoMapper
- Vulnerable: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol
- Critical CVE: System.Drawing.Common 5.0.0
Warning — 24 finding(s)
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.10.0
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.10.0
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Api 1.10.0
- Medium CVE: OpenTelemetry.Exporter.OpenTelemetryProtocol 1.10.0
- Medium CVE: SharpCompress 0.30.1
- Medium CVE: Swashbuckle.AspNetCore.SwaggerUI 6.1.5
- Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.10.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components 6.0.8
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.IdentityModel.JsonWebTokens 6.8.0
- Medium CVE: System.IdentityModel.Tokens.Jwt 6.8.0
- Medium CVE: Duende.IdentityServer 6.1.0
- Off the main sequence: Contracts
- Off the main sequence: Infrastructure
- Off the main sequence: Tests.Acceptance.Core
- Off the main sequence: Web.MVC
- Off the main sequence: Web
- Deprecated: SpecFlow.Plus.LivingDocPlugin
- Deprecated: SpecFlow.xUnit
- Deprecated: xunit
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Infrastructure/Data/DbContext/DbInitialization.cs:51
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Infrastructure/DbContext/DbInitialization.cs:39
- TodoComment src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/ApiGateway/Startup.cs:16
- LLM evaluation failed
- Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Infrastructure/DbContext/DbInitialization.cs:39
Recommendation — 30 finding(s)
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Boards/Api/Boards.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Read.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/2-Services/Tasks/Api/Tasks.Write.Api/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/Aggregator/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/ApiGateway/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/3-ApiGateways/UserPanel/ApiGateway/Dockerfile.original
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/4-Clients/UserPanel/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/4-Clients/Website/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 src/4-Clients/Website/Dockerfile.original
- Off-boarding risk: anonymized user #1
- Shell project: Tests.Acceptance.API src/5-Tests/Acceptance/Tests.Acceptance.API/Tests.Acceptance.API.csproj
- No ADRs found
- Typo in class name: 'Regiser' instead of 'Register' in both the Steps class and the Test class.
- Typo in method name: 'lenght' instead of 'length' in test method names.
- The provided list does not show a clear case of the SAME concept having DIFFERENT names (e.g., User vs Customer). The 'Regiser' typo is a spelling error, not a vocabulary inconsistency. However, let's look for 'Get' vs 'Fetch' or similar.
- Bounded contexts not declared
- redundant comment src/1-BuildingBlocks/Infrastructure/Mapping/MapperExtensions.cs:19
- Dormant codebase
Info — 58 finding(s)
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Mvc.Razor.RuntimeCompilation
- Outdated: Microsoft.VisualStudio.Azure.Containers.Tools.Targets
- Outdated: Microsoft.VisualStudio.Web.CodeGeneration.Design
- Outdated: Blazored.Modal
- Outdated: Blazored.Toast
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.Authentication
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Components.WebAssembly.DevServer
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Http
- Outdated: FluentAssertions
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: Selenium.WebDriver.ChromeDriver
- Outdated: SpecFlow.xUnit
- Outdated: xunit
- Outdated: xunit.runner.visualstudio
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.Configuration.Json
- Outdated: Selenium.WebDriver
- Outdated: MediatR
- Outdated: MediatR.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore
- Outdated: MongoDB.Driver
- Outdated: Newtonsoft.Json
- Outdated: MassTransit
- Outdated: MassTransit.RabbitMQ
- Mock framework: NSubstitute
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
- 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 auto --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | — |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list TaskoMask.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 26 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 42 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| 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 — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a NuGet package, a container image, a GitHub release). | 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 | — |
Appendix C — Personal-data map
Email — 25 field(s)
- GetOwnerDto.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Dtos/Owners/GetOwnerDto.cs:17
- RegisterOwnerDto.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Dtos/Owners/RegisterOwnerDto.cs:28
- UpdateOwnerProfileDto.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Dtos/Owners/UpdateOwnerProfileDto.cs:31
- UserRegistered.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/IdentityIntegrationEvents.cs:3
- UserUpdated.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/IdentityIntegrationEvents.cs:5
- OwnerRegistered.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/OwnerIntegrationEvents.cs:3
- OwnerRegisterationCompleted.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/OwnerIntegrationEvents.cs:5
- OwnerProfileUpdated.NewEmail src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/OwnerIntegrationEvents.cs:7
- OwnerProfileUpdated.OldEmail src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/OwnerIntegrationEvents.cs:7
- OwnerUpdatingProfileCompleted.Email src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Events/OwnerIntegrationEvents.cs:9
- DomainConstValues.OWNER_EMAIL_MIN_LENGTH src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Helpers/DomainConstValues.cs:42
- DomainConstValues.OWNER_EMAIL_MAX_LENGTH src/1-BuildingBlocks/Contracts/Helpers/DomainConstValues.cs:43
- UserRegisteredEvent.Email src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Domain/Events/UserRegisteredEvent.cs:16
- UserUpdatedEvent.Email src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/Domain/Events/UserUpdatedEvent.cs:16
- RegisterUserRequest.Email src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/UseCases/RegisterUser/RegisterUserRequest.cs:20
- UpdateUserRequest.OldEmail src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/UseCases/UpdateUser/UpdateUserRequest.cs:16
- UpdateUserRequest.NewEmail src/2-Services/Identity/Api/Identity.Api/UseCases/UpdateUser/UpdateUserRequest.cs:19
- Owner.Email src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Read.Api/Domain/Owner.cs:25
- Owner.Email src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Domain/Owners/Entities/Owner.cs:48
- OwnerProfileUpdatedEvent.Email src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Domain/Owners/Events/Owners/OwnerProfileUpdatedEvent.cs:18
- OwnerRegisteredEvent.Email src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/Domain/Owners/Events/Owners/OwnerRegisteredEvent.cs:17
- RegiserOwnerRequest.Email src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/UseCases/Owners/RegisterOwner/RegisterOwnerRequest.cs:34
- UpdateOwnerProfileRequest.Email src/2-Services/Owners/Api/Owners.Write.Api/UseCases/Owners/UpdateOwnerProfile/UpdateOwnerProfileRequest.cs:34
- OwnerBasicInfoDto.Email src/5-Tests/Acceptance/Tests.Acceptance.Core/Models/OwnerBasicInfoDto.cs:9
- OwnerRegisterDto.Email src/5-Tests/Acceptance/Tests.Acceptance.Core/Models/OwnerRegisterDto.cs:7