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.
henriquemachado1993/app.services.api carries serious gaps (33%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Code Health (96%) — the code is clean and low-risk to change. Architecture (81%) is solid too.
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 Maturity (22%) — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent. Readiness (27%) is the next concern — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map… (Documentation (README)); Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions… (Architecture documentation); README describing the system (Documentation accuracy).
For scale: Hobby (~818 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 (96%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Code Health
96%
Adequate · gated by D18
Architecture
81%
Strong
Maturity
22% ⚠
Critical · gated by M1, M2, M4
Readiness
27%
Weak · gated by P1, P2, P3
Security
37%
Weak · gated by D30, C2
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Maturity 22% · 47% weightReadiness 27% · 26% weightSecurity 37% · 14% weightArchitecture 81% · 8% weightCode Health 96% · 4% weight
Raise Maturity 22 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 33 → ~43.
Code composition — where the lines go
Business logic 7%Plumbing 92%Tests 1%
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €170–€820
| Cost to rebuild | €170–€820 |
| Domain complexity | Low |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 33% quality) |
| Size & shape | Hobby · 56% boilerplate · 37% straight-line · 7% branching logic |
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality.
2
Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects.
3
Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move: fix the build
The solution doesn't compile, so every Roslyn-derived dimension (complexity, duplication, cohesion, dead code, API surface) ran on incomplete models and is PROVISIONAL. Fixing the build is the single change that makes the rest of the report trustworthy — do it first. The compiler reported: CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Arc' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?); CS0246: The type or namespace name 'QueryCriteria<>' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?).
Improving trajectory
The headline is improving steadily (+3.5 pts/run over 9 runs) — whatever you're doing is working; keep the gate.
Trajectory
OverallCode HealthArchitectureMaturityReadinessSecurity
Architecture — module dependency graph
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
D1 · .NET / C#
Cyclomatic Complexity
10.0
D2 · .NET / C#
Cognitive Complexity
10.0
D3 · .NET / C#
God Classes
10.0
D4 · .NET / C#
Code Duplication
10.0
D17 · .NET / C#
Explicit Debt
10.0
GD1 · Repo
Unfinished & placeholder code
10.0
IC1 · Repo
Incompleteness & stubs
10.0
X1 · Repo
Async correctness
10.0
X3 · Repo
Exception handling
10.0
X4 · Repo
Structured logging
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
D5 · .NET / C#
Coupling
10.0
D6 · .NET / C#
Cohesion (LCOM4)
10.0
D26 · .NET / C#
Project Cohesion
10.0
D27 · .NET / C#
Navigability
8.2
D35 · .NET / C#
Change Coupling
10.0
AX1 · Repo
Captive dependencies
10.0
AX3 · Repo
Project dependency cycles
10.0
AX5 · Repo
Architecture & structure
10.0
AX6 · Repo
Interface segregation
10.0
AX8 · Repo
Test isolation
10.0
The Ugly
At a glance — Maturity
The Ugly
At a glance — Readiness
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A06:2021 — Vulnerable & Outdated Components | 50 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, establish a root README that explains the system, build steps, and project map, ensuring this documentation is accurate and current. Next, begin an architecture decision record (ADR) log to capture significant design choices and their rationale. Then, implement a CI/CD pipeline that automatically builds the code and runs tests on every push or pull request. Finally, integrate structured logging across all services to improve observability and enable effective debugging.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. | +6.2 pts | Low | ADR Quality |
| Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects. | +12.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +12.4 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a README describing the system, how to build/run it, and keep it current. | +12.4 pts | Medium | Documentation accuracy |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +10.4 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +10.4 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Context.cs, DependenciesInjector.cs, Startup.cs. | +5.2 pts | Low | Comment Value |
| Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. | +4.5 pts | Low | Dependency Hygiene |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| App.Test/UnitTest1.cs | 8.0 | Near-clean | Test Quality: No assertions (empty test): TestMethod1 |
| App.Infra.Data/Contexts/Context.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| App.Infra.IoC/DependenciesInjector.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
| App.Services.Api/Startup.cs | 9.5 | Near-clean | Comment Value: redundant comment |
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. 43 of 46 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 3 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.6 — 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 — 46 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D9D10D11D12D13D14D15D17D18D19D20D21D24D26D27D28D29D30D35AX1AX10AX3AX5AX6AX8C2GD1IC1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3P8S1X1X3X4
How to trust any code-health report — three questions
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 9 of 87 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
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D10 Test Quality: Assertion density is structural — it cannot tell a meaningful behavioural assertion from a trivial one, only that an assertion is present.
- D11 Test Reliability: Flakiness is inferred from history/markers — Watchdog runs the suite once (for coverage), not the repeated runs under varied conditions that reveal nondeterminism, so a flaky test never recorded as failing is invisible here.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D14 License Compliance: License compatibility is checked against declared package metadata and a policy — mislabelled or missing license metadata, and obligations that depend on how you distribute, are not resolved here.
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
0 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
6 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
0 of 1 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
1 test methods: 1 unit, 0 integration, 0 BDD, 0 e2e.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D10 · Test Quality
0 skipped, 1 zero-assertion, no mocking-framework packages referenced (hand-written doubles or no mocking) across 1 tests.
No assertions (empty test): TestMethod1App.Test/UnitTest1.cs:8
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No assertions (empty test) finding(s) in Test Quality — start with UnitTest1.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Test Quality in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D11 · Test Reliability
0 flaky across 1 measured tier(s). other: measured (0 flaky).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
9 outdated, 2 vulnerable, 2 deprecated packages.
Vulnerable: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All
Deprecated: Microsoft.NETCore.App
Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All
What to do
- Resolve the 2 Vulnerable finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
- Resolve the 2 Deprecated finding(s) in Dependency Hygiene. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
- Enforce Dependency Hygiene in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D14 · License Compliance
0 of 9 packages use a banned license.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
0 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 818 LoC (0.0/KLoC) → score 10.0.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
6 projects, 34 .cs files, 830 hand-written lines of code (818 production / 12 test), 9 inter-project edges (build failed).
Build failed
Thin analysable surface across projects
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Build failed finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 Thin analysable surface across projects finding(s) in Solution Shape. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The project has no README files and no architecture or design documentation, with XML documentation covering only a single API service at 0% of its declared types across all namespaces. This leaves the codebase completely undocumented for any reader who needs to understand what each component does.
XML-doc coverage: App.Services.Api App.Services.Api/App.Services.Api.csproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 1.0/10. — The project has no README files and no architecture or design documentation, with XML documentation covering only a single API service at 0% of its declared types across all namespaces. This leaves the codebase completely undocumented for any reader who needs to understand what each component does.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D20 · ADR Quality
No architecture decision records were found.
No ADRs found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No ADRs found finding(s) in ADR Quality. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
5 naming inconsistencies across 192 sampled symbols.
Inconsistent naming for Create/Delete operations. 'Incluir' (Include/Add) is used for creation, while 'Excluir' (Exclude/Delete) is used for deletion. Other parts of the codebase use 'Add'/'Delete' or 'Alterar'/'Listar' for similar operations.
Inconsistent naming for Update/Read operations. 'Alterar' (Alter/Update) and 'Listar' (List) are used, whereas other services use 'Update' and 'Get'/'GetById'.
Inconsistent naming for fetching by ID. 'PegarPorId' (GetBy/GetById) is used here, while other services use 'GetById' or 'Get'.
Inconsistent naming for the application service layer. 'PratoApp' is a concrete class, while the base class is 'BaseServiceApp'. The naming convention for application services seems to mix 'App' suffix with 'Service' or 'App' prefixes inconsistently.
Inconsistent naming for the 'Colher' entity/property. In the domain entity, it is a property 'Colher' on 'Prato', but there is also a separate 'Colher' entity. The property name 'Colher' on 'Prato' suggests a relationship, but the naming is not consistent with the plural 'Colheres' on the Context or the entity name 'Colher'.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for Create/Delete operations. 'Incluir'… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for Update/Read operations. 'Alterar' (Alter/Update)… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
- Resolve the 1 Inconsistent naming for fetching by ID. 'PegarPorId' (GetBy/GetById) is… finding(s) in Naming Consistency. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D24 · Comment Value
0 valuable / 3 redundant across 6 sampled comments; 3 shown with locations.
redundant comment App.Infra.Data/Contexts/Context.cs:27
What to do
- Resolve the 3 redundant comment finding(s) in Comment Value — start with Context.cs, DependenciesInjector.cs, Startup.cs. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 6 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D27 · Navigability
87 % of calls cross a namespace and 17 % go through an interface, but 78 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
What to do
- Improve Navigability — currently 8.2/10. — 87 % of calls cross a namespace and 17 % go through an interface, but 78 % of collaborators are co-located — so following a call takes several hops. Baseline: small — navigation cost is tolerated.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
64 vulnerable package(s): 2 critical, 33 high, 29 medium, 0 low.
High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
Critical CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core 2.1.0
Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
What to do
- Resolve the 33 High CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (33 issue-level).
- Resolve the 15 Medium CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (15 warning-level).
- Resolve the 2 Critical CVE finding(s) in Dependency Vulnerabilities. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX1 · Captive dependencies
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX10 · Code composition
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX3 · Project dependency cycles
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX8 · Test isolation
Do you agree with this assessment?
C2 · Access Controls
- No [Authorize]/policies and no imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) were found — endpoints may be unprotected.
What to do
- Protect endpoints by default-deny: [Authorize] + role/policy authorization, or imperative guard methods (throw-on-violation) called from every handler.
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
IC1 · Incompleteness & stubs
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
- No README at the repository root — newcomers have no entry point.
What to do
- Add a root README: what the system is, how to build/run it, and a map of the projects.
- Add a README to the 6 of 6 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- There is no README, so nothing documents what the system is or how it works.
What to do
- Add a README describing the system, how to build/run it, and keep it current.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P8 · Schema migrations
Do you agree with this assessment?
S1 · Web-Security Posture
- No Content-Security-Policy / X-Frame-Options / X-Content-Type-Options configuration found — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them. (−2.0 on this card.)
- No CookieSecurePolicy/HttpOnly/SameSite configuration found. (−1.5 on this card; skip if the app sets no cookies.)
What to do
- Add security response headers (Content-Security-Policy, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options) — defense in depth, even when a reverse proxy could set them.
- Set secure cookie flags — CookieSecurePolicy.Always, HttpOnly, and SameSite (Strict/Lax) on auth/session cookies. Skip only if the app sets no cookies.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 96% | Adequate — gated by D18 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 81% | Strong | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 22% | Critical — gated by M1, M2, M4 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 27% | Weak — gated by P1, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 37% | Weak — gated by D30, C2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 48 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX4 Dependency direction — not applicable to a transaction-script/CRUD architecture (the inward-dependency rule is for layered/clean styles)
- AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — no data
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- 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.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- 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 — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not measured
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — only 1/3 markers (a Domain/Aggregates/ValueObjects layer)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- 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
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- 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
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
- X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — no data
- X7 Silent fallback defaults — no data
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 38 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- High CVE: AutoMapper 9.0.0
- High CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- High CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.DataProtection.AzureStorage 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.Connections 1.0.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Identity 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Transport.Libuv 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Transport.Sockets 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.SignalR.Redis 1.0.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.WebSockets 2.1.0
- High CVE: Microsoft.Data.OData 5.8.2
- High CVE: Newtonsoft.Json 11.0.2
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Vulnerable: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All
- Vulnerable: Microsoft.NETCore.App
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Critical CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.Server.Kestrel.Core 2.1.0
- Critical CVE: System.Text.Encodings.Web 4.5.0
D10 · Test Quality
- No assertions (empty test): TestMethod1 App.Test/UnitTest1.cs:8
Warning — 20 finding(s)
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: Microsoft.NETCore.App 2.1.0
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
- Medium CVE: MessagePack 1.7.3.4
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Deprecated: Microsoft.NETCore.App
- Deprecated: Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql
D16 · Bus Factor
- single-maintainer — knowledge-concentration (bus factor) risk
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build failed
D8 · Code Coverage
- Coverage not measured
Recommendation — 12 finding(s)
D24 · Comment Value
- redundant comment App.Infra.Data/Contexts/Context.cs:27
- redundant comment App.Infra.IoC/DependenciesInjector.cs:15
- redundant comment App.Services.Api/Startup.cs:26
D18 · Solution Shape
- Thin analysable surface across projects
D20 · ADR Quality
- No ADRs found
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for Create/Delete operations. 'Incluir' (Include/Add) is used for creation, while 'Excluir' (Exclude/Delete) is used for deletion. Other parts of the codebase use 'Add'/'Delete' or 'Alterar'/'Listar' for similar operations.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for Update/Read operations. 'Alterar' (Alter/Update) and 'Listar' (List) are used, whereas other services use 'Update' and 'Get'/'GetById'.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for fetching by ID. 'PegarPorId' (GetBy/GetById) is used here, while other services use 'GetById' or 'Get'.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for the application service layer. 'PratoApp' is a concrete class, while the base class is 'BaseServiceApp'. The naming convention for application services seems to mix 'App' suffix with 'Service' or 'App' prefixes inconsistently.
D21 · Naming Consistency
- Inconsistent naming for the 'Colher' entity/property. In the domain entity, it is a property 'Colher' on 'Prato', but there is also a separate 'Colher' entity. The property name 'Colher' on 'Prato' suggests a relationship, but the naming is not consistent with the plural 'Colheres' on the Context or the entity name 'Colher'.
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
Info — 17 finding(s)
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
- Outdated: Microsoft.AspNetCore.All
- Outdated: Microsoft.Extensions.DependencyInjection
- Outdated: Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql
- Outdated: AutoMapper.Extensions.Microsoft.DependencyInjection
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Design
- Outdated: Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore.Tools
- Outdated: Microsoft.NET.Test.Sdk
- Outdated: MSTest.TestAdapter
- Outdated: MSTest.TestFramework
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: App.Services.Api App.Services.Api/App.Services.Api.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: App.Application App.Aplication/App.Application.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: App.Domain App.Domain/App.Domain.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: App.Infra.Data App.Infra.Data/App.Infra.Data.csproj
- XML-doc coverage: App.Infra.IoC App.Infra.IoC/App.Infra.IoC.csproj
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
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 App.Services.Api.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 64 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |