holunda-io/camunda-bpm-taskpool

Executive summary

holunda-io/camunda-bpm-taskpool scores 55 out of 100 and is rated Adequate, while four of its seven lenses score higher still: Event Sourcing at 100, rated Exemplary, Code Health at 82 and Architecture at 74, both rated Strong, and Production Readiness at 68, rated Adequate.

The score is lower than those four because the weakest lens counts most, and here that is Maturity, which scores 51 and is rated Adequate. Its Documentation accuracy dimension scores 0 out of 10, and until that reaches 4, Maturity can't be rated higher than Adequate. The first actions are to reconcile the README with reality: docs/migration-guide/index.md documents the environment variable `POLYFLOW_LIQUIBASE_ADOPTION_ENABLED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md links to `./core-taskpool`, but `docs/reference-guide/components/core-taskpool` does not exist and to resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy. The weakest lenses score close to each other, so improving any of them moves the score.

30 findings are critical: 27 in Static Analysis (SAST), two in Dependency direction and one in Test Reliability.

Watchdog couldn't measure 15 dimensions in this code, among them Code Coverage, Dependency Hygiene and License Compliance, so they are left out of the score. The product code is 19,762 lines, which would take an estimated 0.3 person-years, around €48,000, to rebuild.

Code Health 82 Strong Architecture 74 Strong Maturity 51 Adequate, capped by Documentation accuracy Production Readiness 68 Adequate Security and Compliance 55 Adequate, capped by Static Analysis (SAST) and Supply-chain Provenance & Signing Domain Modelling 52 Adequate, capped by Strongly-typed ids and Encapsulated state Event Sourcing 100 ★ Exemplary

A lens is capped at Adequate while one of its dimensions scores below 4 out of 10, however well the rest of the lens does. That way a serious problem in one place always shows in the lens's rating.

How the score is built: what each lens counts for The lenses don't count equally. The weakest lens counts most, the next weakest a little less, and so on, so a weak area pulls the score down instead of being averaged away. In the bar below, each part's width shows how much that lens counts and its colour shows its rating. Improving the widest part moves the score most, and as that lens improves, it counts for less, because another lens becomes the weakest.

Maturity 51 · counts for 46%Domain Modelling 52 · counts for 25%Security and Compliance 55 · counts for 14%Production Readiness 68 · counts for 8%Architecture 74 · counts for 4%Code Health 82 · counts for 2%Event Sourcing 100 · counts for 1%

The weakest lenses score close to each other, so improving any of them moves the score.

Code composition: what the lines of code are

Product code 58%Tests 42%

New since the last survey: 2 findings

These 2 critical or serious findings weren't in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026.

Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/process/ProcessDefinitionMongoService.kt
Documentation (README) · README may be stale

Watchdog compares every finding with the previous survey's. A finding that has only moved to another line in the same file counts as the same finding, so only new findings appear here. Advisory notes from the AI model are left out, because the model words them afresh in every survey.

Fixed since the last survey: 8 findings

These 8 critical or serious findings were in the previous survey, on 8 October 2026, and are gone from this one.

Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/process/ProcessDefinitionMongoService.kt
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] integration/common/liquibase/pom.xml
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] integration/common/variable-serializer/pom.xml
Dependency Vulnerabilities · High CVE: [GHSA redacted] integration/common/variable-serializer/pom.xml
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] core/spring-utils/pom.xml
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] integration/common/liquibase/pom.xml
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] integration/common/liquibase/pom.xml
Dependency Vulnerabilities · Medium CVE: [GHSA redacted] integration/common/liquibase/pom.xml

Rebuild cost: about €48,000 · Estimate

Cost to rebuild	€16,000 to €80,000, for 267 to 847 hours of work, about 0.3 person-years for one engineer
Difficulty of the problem	High, judged from the kind of software and how it is built. Code that solves a harder problem, such as payments or medical bookings, costs more per line to write.
Quality factor	×0.8 at a score of 55. Better code takes more work to write, so the factor is ×1.0 at a score of 70, lower below it and higher above it.
Size	Small: 19,762 lines of product code

How the estimate is made: Watchdog prices the hours a team would need to write this code again, at €60 to €95 an hour. Declarations and boilerplate are priced at a fast rate and logic at a slower one, and the logic is then multiplied by the difficulty of the problem and by the quality factor. The estimate can be about 30% off either way, and it moves most with the hourly rate and the difficulty. For this code, every line is priced as straight logic, which keeps the estimate on the low side.

Top priorities

The three actions that raise the score most for the work they take. The full ranked list is in the Roadmap.

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/migration-guide/index.md documents the environment variable `POLYFLOW_LIQUIBASE_ADOPTION_ENABLED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md links to `./core-taskpool`, but `docs/reference-guide/components/core-taskpool` does not exist.

Raises the score by about 4 points · Medium effort · Documentation accuracy

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy.

Raises the score by about 2 points · Low effort · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Raises the score by about 3 points · Medium effort · Strongly-typed ids

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Each conclusion below combines several dimensions into one point that no single dimension shows, and lists the measurements it rests on.

Where the investment is most exposed · Value at risk

This code would cost about €48,000 to build again, about 0.3 person-years of work. Its weakest lens is Maturity, at 51 (Adequate). Maturity is about how well the project explains and looks after itself, which decides whether a new developer, or a new supplier, can take over. Because the weakest lens counts most in the score, work on Maturity also moves the score most.

Based on: the rebuild estimate · the Maturity grade · how much each lens counts

What to do: Start with the Maturity actions in Top priorities.

One cause behind 5 Domain Modelling findings · Common cause

5 findings in the Domain Modelling lens come from the same cause. The code models the business as objects, such as an order or a customer, and each object should guard its own rules: an order, for example, should refuse to be shipped before it has been paid. Here the objects don't do that. Other code can change an object's data directly, so it can put an order into a state the rules forbid. Identifiers, such as order numbers and customer numbers, are passed around as plain numbers or text, so nothing stops the code from using one kind where another belongs. Because all of these findings have the same cause, fixing it once, in the business objects themselves, deals with them together.

Based on: Encapsulated state (2 findings) · Strongly-typed ids (3 findings)

What to do: Give each business object the methods that enforce its rules, such as a method for shipping an order that first checks it has been paid, and let only those methods change its data. Give each kind of identifier a type of its own, so an order number can't be used where a customer number belongs.

If you do one thing first · First action

Based on: the ranked actions in Top priorities, by score gain and effort

Architecture — module dependency graph

Project dependencies, layered top-to-bottom; arrows show direction. Any dashed red edge points upward or sideways — a layering smell or cycle. A clean layered graph has none.

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

The code is divided into modules, groups of code that each handle one part of the product, and a module depends on another when it uses code from it. The table lists the modules both down the side and across the top, in an order where each module should only use modules listed above it. A number in a cell means the module on that row uses the module in that column, and it counts the pairs of building blocks (types) that connect them. The one thing to look for is a mark above the diagonal line. It means two or more modules use each other in a loop (a dependency cycle), so none of them can be changed, tested or released on its own.

163 modules, with 210 dependencies between them. 7 loops run through 26 of the modules, marked above the diagonal.

The table shows the 40 modules with the most connections; 123 more are left out to keep it readable.

Which modules use which. The module on each row uses the module in each column, and the number counts the pairs of types that connect them. A cell above the diagonal is part of a loop.
uses →	1 camunda.taskpool.api.business	3 camunda.variable.serializer	4 polyflow.view.auth	6 polyflow.view.query	7 camunda.taskpool.api.task	8 polyflow.datapool.sender	9 polyflow.taskpool.collector.task.enricher	10 polyflow.taskpool.sender.gateway	11 polyflow.view.filter	12 polyflow.view.query.process	13 polyflow.view.query.process.variable	14 polyflow.view.query.task	15 camunda.taskpool.api.process.definition	16 camunda.taskpool.api.process.instance	17 camunda.taskpool.api.process.variable	19 polyflow.datapool	20 polyflow.view.query.data	23 polyflow.taskpool.sender.process.definition	24 polyflow.taskpool.sender.process.instance	25 polyflow.taskpool.sender.process.variable	26 polyflow.view	27 polyflow.taskpool.sender	28 polyflow.view.jpa.data	29 polyflow.view.jpa.process	30 polyflow.view.mongo.data	32 polyflow.taskpool.sender.task	33 polyflow.view.jpa.task	34 polyflow.view.mongo.task	35 polyflow.taskpool.collector.task	36 polyflow.view.jpa	37 polyflow.view.mongo	38 polyflow.taskpool.collector.task.assigner	39 polyflow.taskpool.collector
1 camunda.taskpool.api.business
2 camunda.taskpool.upcast
3 camunda.variable.serializer
4 polyflow.view.auth
5 polyflow.view.jpa.auth
6 polyflow.view.query
7 camunda.taskpool.api.task	2
8 polyflow.datapool.sender	12															4
9 polyflow.taskpool.collector.task.enricher																													3
10 polyflow.taskpool.sender.gateway																						1
11 polyflow.view.filter																					3
12 polyflow.view.query.process			1	4																	6
13 polyflow.view.query.process.variable				1																	2
14 polyflow.view.query.task			7	21																	18
15 camunda.taskpool.api.process.definition					1
16 camunda.taskpool.api.process.instance	2				13
17 camunda.taskpool.api.process.variable					2
18 camunda.taskpool.model					1
19 polyflow.datapool						1
20 polyflow.view.query.data	2		1	9					2												7
21 camunda.taskpool.mapper.process													4	5	1
22 polyflow.taskpool.core.process													9	6	3
23 polyflow.taskpool.sender.process.definition								1					2									1
24 polyflow.taskpool.sender.process.instance								1						2								1
25 polyflow.taskpool.sender.process.variable					4			2							2							2
26 polyflow.view	6				10					6	4	36			1		10
27 polyflow.taskpool.sender					13			5										1	1	1						3
28 polyflow.view.jpa.data	6	1																			2
29 polyflow.view.jpa.process					1									4							4
30 polyflow.view.mongo.data	1																				3										1
31 polyflow.view.simple.service	8				8					5	3	20	4	5	1		6				11
32 polyflow.taskpool.sender.task					4			2														3
33 polyflow.view.jpa.task		1			1																1		2	1						1
34 polyflow.view.mongo.task			2		4				2			3									4				2						1
35 polyflow.taskpool.collector.task					9		2																			2						1	3
36 polyflow.view.jpa	4	1		2	7					5		19	4	5			6				5		5	4			3
37 polyflow.view.mongo	5				7							10					6				4				5			6
38 polyflow.taskpool.collector.task.assigner					4															2									3
39 polyflow.taskpool.collector							8																									1
40 polyflow.taskpool.collector.process.instance							4							4					2														2

Uses a module listed above itPart of a loopThe module itself

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

The Good

D1 · Kotlin Cyclomatic Complexity 9.2 D2 · Kotlin Cognitive Complexity 9.6 D3 · Kotlin God Classes 9.3 D4 · Kotlin Code Duplication 9.4 D17 · Kotlin Explicit Debt 9.8 X1 · Repo Async correctness 10.0 X12 · Repo Unreachable branch 10.0 X13 · Repo Undrained process stream 10.0 X16 · Repo Unfloored truncation loop 10.0 X18 · Repo Disposal-pattern correctness 10.0 X19 · Repo Unrestored process-global state 10.0 X20 · Repo Mistyped argument guard 10.0 X21 · Repo Side-effecting pattern guard 10.0 X22 · Repo Contradicted release guard 10.0 X23 · Repo Unguarded diagnostic materialisation 10.0 X25 · Repo Inert configuration knob 10.0 X26 · Repo Unsynchronised callback handoff 10.0 X27 · Repo Collection changed while being enumerated 10.0 X28 · Repo Index access outside its own emptiness guard 10.0 X29 · Repo Per-element action decided by a fixed element 10.0 X30 · Repo Support guard that admits what it rejects 10.0 X4 · Repo Structured logging 10.0 X5 · Repo Nullable reference types 9.8

The Ugly

X3 · Repo Exception handling 4.8

At a glance — Architecture · 74% · Strong ·

The Good

D5 · Kotlin Coupling 9.0 D6 · Kotlin Cohesion (LCOM4) 9.5 D7 · Kotlin Architectural Integrity 10.0 D26 · Kotlin Project Cohesion 10.0 D35 · Kotlin Change Coupling 10.0 AX1 · Repo Captive dependencies 10.0 AX10 · Repo Code composition 8.1 AX3 · Repo Project dependency cycles 10.0

The Bad

AX2 · Repo Stateful singletons 6.7 AX4 · Repo Dependency direction 5.8

At a glance — Maturity · 51% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

The Good

D15 · Kotlin Churn × Complexity Hotspots 10.0 D19 · Kotlin Documentation Quality 9.0 D20 · Kotlin ADR Quality 8.5 D21 · Kotlin Naming Consistency 10.0 D25 · Kotlin ADR Conformance 10.0 M2 · Repo Architecture documentation 8.5 M3 · Repo Folder & project structure 10.0

The Ugly

M1 · Repo Documentation (README) 4.5 M4 · Repo Documentation accuracy 0.0

At a glance — Readiness · 68% · Adequate ·

The Good

D13 · Kotlin Secret Scanning 10.0 P1 · Repo CI/CD gates 10.0 P3 · Repo Security & performance tooling 7.0 P4 · Repo Deployment & Rollback 7.0 P8 · Repo Schema migrations 10.0

The Bad

P10 · Repo Library API & versioning 6.0 P6 · Repo Release Hygiene 5.0

At a glance — Security · 55% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

The Good

D28 · Kotlin Secrets (history) 10.0 D44 · Kotlin Platform End-of-Life 10.0 X14 · Repo Bypassable address classification 10.0 X15 · Repo Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader 10.0 X17 · Repo Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document 10.0

The Ugly

D29 · Kotlin Static Analysis (SAST) 0.9 D36 · Kotlin Supply-chain Provenance & Signing 2.5 D37 · Kotlin Vulnerability-disclosure Policy 4.0

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 52% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM5 ·

The Good

DM1 · Repo Aggregate boundaries 10.0 DM11 · Repo Constructible invalid state 7.7 DM8 · Repo Value-object opportunities 10.0

The Ugly

DM2 · Repo Strongly-typed ids 3.0 DM5 · Repo Encapsulated state 3.5

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

The Good

ES1 · Repo Fold determinism 10.0 ES2 · Repo Immutable events 10.0 ES3 · Repo PII in the event store 10.0

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Findings mapped to OWASP categories; the specific CVEs/secrets are in the Security dimension cards below and findings.md (redacted only on the public version of this report).

OWASP category	Findings	Severity
A05:2025 — Injection	29	High / Critical
A03:2025 — Software Supply Chain Failures	4	Medium
A02:2025 — Security Misconfiguration	1	Medium

Roadmap

First, reconcile all documentation to match the actual codebase by removing references to non-existent files and variables, and add a quick-start section to the root README to help new contributors. Second, enforce strong typing for all domain identifiers to prevent argument errors and restrict entity state changes to private setters or invariant-enforcing methods. Finally, update the vulnerability disclosure policy to include a valid reporting contact.

Ranked by impact ÷ effort. "Helps" is the estimated gain on the 0–100 health score.

Do this	Helps	Effort	Dimension
Reconcile the README with reality: docs/migration-guide/index.md documents the environment variable `POLYFLOW_LIQUIBASE_ADOPTION_ENABLED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md links to `./core-taskpool`, but `docs/reference-guide/components/core-taskpool` does not exist.	+3.6 pts	Medium	Documentation accuracy
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy.	+1.7 pts	Low	Vulnerability-disclosure Policy
Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.	+2.8 pts	Medium	Strongly-typed ids
Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).	+2.6 pts	Medium	Encapsulated state
Resolve the 1 Context is only one sentence and lacks any problem statement (e.g. why… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 000-adr-conventions.md.	+1.3 pts	Low	ADR Quality
Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.	+2.4 pts	Medium	Documentation (README)
Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED.	+0.7 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3).	+0.6 pts	Low	Static Analysis (SAST)

File quality

Per-file score 0–10 — a quality signature. Of 47 files carrying findings, judged against the Production bar: 4% slop · 39% mixed · 57% near-clean.

File	Score	Band	Worst signal
REDACTED	2.7	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	3.0	Slop	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.4	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.6	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	4.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
REDACTED	5.8	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt	6.0	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt	6.3	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: TaskEventCollectorService.update (cyclomatic 17)
integration/common/variable-serializer/src/main/kotlin/VariableSerializer.kt	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/ProjectingCommandAccumulator.kt	6.7	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt	7.2	Mixed	Cyclomatic Complexity: SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23)
view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt	7.2	Mixed	God Classes: TooManyMethods: SimpleTaskPoolService
view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt	7.2	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
REDACTED	7.2	Mixed	Static Analysis (SAST): High: REDACTED
core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/upcast/AnnotationBasedSingleEventUpcaster.kt	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesRepositoryExtensionImpl.kt	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: FixmeComment
view/mongo/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/service/PolyflowMongoServiceTestBase.kt	7.3	Mixed	Explicit Debt: TodoComment
core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt	7.4	Mixed	Code Duplication: Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens)
view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt	7.8	Mixed	Code Duplication: Duplicated block (8 lines × 2)

How the grades work

Every finding carries one of four grades. Three say how serious it is. The fourth says this survey could not settle it — and it is a grade, not a gap.

Critical — 30

A definite problem that already costs you something and drags the score down: a missing authorisation check, a dependency with a known exploit, a build that does not reproduce. Failure here tends to cause failures elsewhere.

Serious — 82

Likely wrong, but not failing yet. It degrades the codebase over a longer horizon and can cause failures elsewhere — not urgent this week, not something to carry for two years either.

Minor — 24

Recorded, with no effect on how the codebase functions. Present so the survey is complete, not because it needs doing.

Could not be resolved — 16

Something this survey could not settle from the outside, and which could be critical or serious. Either a control was required and no positive evidence of it exists in the repository — a backup job that nothing shows was ever restored from proves nothing about restores — or our own analysis could not run over that part of the tree. This is not a clean result. These are excluded from the score rather than awarded a pass, so the number on the cover neither rewards nor penalises them: if you act on this survey without resolving them, you carry that risk yourself. Each one is named under Limitations.

Methodology & how to trust this report

Watchdog is a deep, periodic assessment — run each sprint, monthly, or quarterly, taking the time to go wider and deeper than a quick check and surfacing in one coherent report what you'd otherwise piece together from a dozen separate tools. It scores deterministically: the same commit yields the same score, every run. 61 of 66 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 5 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.8 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.

Every figure here is one of three kinds, and we label which: ✓ Measured — a deterministic fact (LoC, complexity, coverage); ~ Modeled — an estimate from a stated model (cost, effort, value-at-risk), always a range with its assumptions, never a precise fact; ◐ Advisory — an LLM prose judgement. We never present a modelled estimate as if it were measured. Perfect or absent scores carry their provenance too (ADR-0011): ✓ Tool-verified means the property itself was measured across the surface; ○ Nothing flagged means the probes came back clean — a claim bounded by what a repository can show; ⊘ Not evidenced means a working control (a tested restore, an automated rollback) showed no positive evidence — absence of evidence is not evidence of a control, so it's excluded from the score rather than awarded a spurious 10; ◐ Sampled · advisory marks an LLM verdict over a bounded sample — advisory, never a deterministic measurement.

What we checked — 66 dimensions across the health lenses

D1D2D3D4D5D6D7D13D15D17D19D20D21D25D26D28D29D35D36D37D44AX1AX10AX2AX3AX4DM1DM11DM2DM5DM8ES1ES2ES3M1M2M3M4P1P10P3P4P6P8X1X12X13X14X15X16X17X18X19X20X21X22X23X25X26X27X28X29X3X30X4X5

Each chip is a dimension scored from real signals across architecture, testing, dependencies, security & compliance, documentation, git-history and code quality — in one coherent pass. A surface report typically covers a handful.

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, 121 of 136 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line. (Every path in this report is repo-relative by construction: paths are normalized at the producer and the report is rejected if any rooted path leaks through.)
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.

This report answers yes to all three. That's the bar to hold any assessment to.

Tools & methods

The actual versions used this run (captured at analysis time) — re-run on the same commit for the identical score.

Method	Backs	Version	Evaluator
Roslyn static analysis	Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering	5.3.0	✓ deterministic
Native secret scanner	Hardcoded secrets / credentials	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Watchdog duplication detector (in-process)	Code duplication	1.0.0	✓ deterministic
Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage)	Line & branch coverage	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
NuGet / dotnet	Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies	10.0.400	✓ deterministic
git / LibGit2Sharp	Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history	2.43.0 · 0.31.0	✓ deterministic
gitleaks · semgrep · trivy	Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR	1.86.0 · 0.69.3	✓ deterministic
LLM (sampled · advisory)	Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement	Local LLM	◐ LLM · sampled · advisory

Every finding is locatable in findings.md. Run 01a16562-31be-720c-b3ba-1f983650ad8e.

The exact command behind every deep-scan dimension — tool, version, invocation and retained raw output — is in Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail.

Run transparency — what happened this run

What ran differently this time — a tool absent, degraded, or that fell back to an estimate. Named openly, not folded silently into the scores. A degraded run also records its exact cause in diagnostics.md.

D8 Code Coverage — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Coverage NOT READ here — but this repository measures it: a coverage step in CI (`codecov/codecov-action`) shows that coverage is collected and tracked in your own CI. The built-in collector has no runner for this ecosystem (.kt), so the analyzer could not read the number — a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not an unmeasured repo. Not scored. To have the real number read, produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures. You can widen what we reach: optional: produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures — then the real number is read on the next scan.
D11 Test Reliability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This repository declares 1 of its own test(s) unreliable. The built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem (.kt), so the suite was not re-run and no reliability score is given — these are the repository's own declarations, not our measurement.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not scored — 33 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 3 dependency(ies) and leaving 250 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D16 Bus Factor — not measured this run — This is a true statement about the repository that carries nothing for its owner to act on, so it is reported here rather than as a defect in their code. Single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable (28 contributor(s) across 2584 commit(s) sampled, automation and bot accounts excluded). One of them holds 81% of the history; the other 27 hold 0.7% each on average, below the 5% at which there is somebody to hand the work to. That is a single maintainer with drive-by contributors, not a team whose knowledge has concentrated — so the bus factor is not applicable and there is nothing here for the owner to act on.
D22 Internal API Consistency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. D22 identifies the intentionally-exposed surface from `IsPackable` and `.Contracts` project names, MSBuild conventions read off the loaded project set. This target exposed no such projects, so the probe never ran; this says nothing about whether the repository has a public API. This repository commits no C#/VB source at all, so there was never an MSBuild project set to read these conventions off. That is OUR side and it is an ADMISSION gap, not an environment fault: it declares a published package (pom.xml), but no published-package marker D22 reads admitted any project here. D22 DOES collect the public API of every language in this tree, and admits a project only when its manifest makes that ecosystem's publication act in a form the marker recognises — so what is missing is not a collector but an admission rule for the publication act this repository makes, if it makes one. The remedy is a better discriminator for that marker — not a collector, and no change to the scan image can close it. The marker's rules are measured to refuse applications, so one refused repository is the rule working as calibrated; several are the evidence that it is too strict.
D27 Navigability — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Navigability is taken over call sites whose callee resolved. For C# that population includes calls into referenced assemblies; for this language only calls declared inside the repository count, so the abstention threshold reads the repository's use of its standard library as a resolution failure. That is a limit of this analyzer, not a build problem in this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Osv: osv-scanner exited 127 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured. 'osv-scanner' exited 127 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. `core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessDefinitionRegisterCommandHandler.kt`, `core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt`, `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/PolyflowJpaViewConfiguration.kt`, `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/process/ProcessDefinitionEntity.kt`, `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/task/TaskEntity.kt` produced a parse error, so every rule in this engine's `gdpr.yml` was absent there. That absence is NOT a clean result: these rules detect personal data crossing a boundary into a log sink, a URL or browser storage, and a file that was never parsed cannot report any of the three. The rest of the tree analysed normally and its rows above stand; only these files are unaccounted for. You can widen what we reach: fix the syntax error (or exclude the file deliberately) and re-scan to cover it.
D34 Knowledge Freshness — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. File-level freshness contradicts repo activity: 68 commits in the last 90 days, yet 97 of 105 significant files carry no living knowledge. Those two readings cannot both be true, so the per-file recency signal is treated as unreliable here and freshness is not scored for this run.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Osv: osv-scanner exited 127 with no findings — dependency CVEs were not measured. 'osv-scanner' exited 127 and produced no findings, and that exit code has no documented repo-side meaning — so this run measured nothing, and nothing here is a statement about the repository.
AX6 Interface segregation — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check is computed over the public interfaces this run's compilations declare, and none was loaded, so it had nothing to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
C2 Access Controls — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These authorization controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks authorization controls.
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. Not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither.
ED5 Idempotency — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check decides whether a handler's mutation is safe to re-run by recognising its persistence writes (a database save, a repository write, an event publish) and its guards. Those markers are .NET member names, so in this repository's language a write such as `repository.save(order)` is not recognised and a same-named call on an unrelated library type could be. The handlers were found; their idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Kotlin is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby and Scala source only, and no C#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Dart, Ruby or Scala was found, and this repository's Kotlin is not read yet, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.
S1 Web-Security Posture — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. These web-security controls are read from declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names and guard methods in a C# source model, and none was loaded on this run, so there was nothing to gather. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository lacks web-security controls.
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not measured this run — Watchdog could not measure this here. That is a gap on our side — a collector, parser or image we have not built yet — and it is neither a defect in this repository nor evidence that the check would have passed. This check reads C# syntax, and JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby and Python source only, and no C# was loaded and no JavaScript/TypeScript, Java, Scala, Ruby or Python was found in this repository, so it had nothing of this repository's product to read. That is a gap in this analyzer's language reach — not a finding that the repository is free of what this check looks for.

Repo exclusion declarations (.gitattributes linguist-generated/vendored, .editorconfig generated_code): none declared — every source file was scored.

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

For each dimension that was measured, what a static, repo-only scan structurally cannot see — the honest edge of the measurement, not a failure of it.

D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity — an in-process token-stream comparison over sliding windows, with type-aware normalization — so it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
D7 Architectural Integrity: Layering is checked against detected/declared rules — an architecture whose boundaries live in convention or in code review, not in a rule a scanner can read, is not enforced here.
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").
D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, generated stubs) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement. Its critique rows are drawn from a closed category vocabulary and each row means the same thing in every run, so two scans can be compared row by row; the SET that fires is still a sample, and does not repeat exactly. Measured on one frozen input, six scans at one engine SHA: 2-5 critique rows per scan, 8 distinct rows across the six, 3 of those 8 seen in only one scan. So a D19 row is evidence about the documentation, but a COUNT of D19 rows is not a quantity — never read a change in it as an improvement or a regression.
D20 ADR Quality: ADR quality is an LLM read of the decision records present — it cannot know about decisions made and never recorded, and its verdict is sampled and advisory.
D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
D25 ADR Conformance: ADR conformance is the LLM-scored fraction of sampled code that follows recorded decisions — it checks the decisions that were written down and the slices it sampled, not unrecorded rules or the whole tree.
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.
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").
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.
D44 Platform End-of-Life: The support table is FROZEN, so it goes out of date by losing RECALL: a release that ended support after the table was written is missed until the table is refreshed, and this dimension reading 10 is not evidence that a platform is current. Only platforms the repository DECLARES in a place this pass reads are seen — a runtime named only in a Dockerfile (D31's subject), in a CI workflow (D29's), or in a file this pass does not parse (go.mod, a Gemfile ruby directive) is invisible here, which is why a repository declaring none of them abstains rather than scoring. Only frameworks with a PUBLISHED support policy are tracked: React, Flask and Express publish none, so their age cannot be judged and their absence from a report is not a statement that they are supported.
AX10 Code composition: Role is inferred from namespace/folder convention, not semantics — a domain concept living in a folder named "Services" reads as application, and the split is lines-of-code, not business value. The business-logic-share score is a SOFT, FLOORED signal: it contributes to the Architecture lens but is floored at the Critical gate, so an infrastructure-heavy design (a gateway, an ETL, a driver) is legitimately low without being nuked to zero.
M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
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".
P6 Release Hygiene: Rollback/observability controls are inferred from repo artefacts (pipelines, dashboards-as-code) — controls configured in external tooling, with no in-repo trace, cannot be credited.

The LLM boundary

LLM-set scores this run (5): D19, D20, D21, D25, M4 (model: Local LLM). For these, a model reads a bounded sample and sets the numeric score; each names its own sample and method on its card. They are sampled and advisory by design: they vary at the margins between runs and are never a deterministic measurement. Every other score in this report is tool-computed at confidence 1.0.

Dimensions

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity9.2 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How tangled the control flow is — methods with many branches are hard to test and change.

Method: Cyclomatic complexity per method (1 + decision points), computed exhaustively across production source; test projects separated by convention. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.2 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification at 23.

SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23) · ×2view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt:64

FilterKt.compareOperator (cyclomatic 19)view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/filter/Filter.kt:34

TaskEventCollectorService.update (cyclomatic 17)integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt:155

What to do

Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23), SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23), FilterKt.compareOperator (cyclomatic 19). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cyclomatic Complexity from 9.2 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Prevented (currently Verified). — Hardens enforcement from Verified toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d1_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D2 · Cognitive Complexity9.6 / 10Stronggated by 4 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: How hard the code is for a person to follow, beyond raw branching.

Method: Cognitive complexity per method (Sonar-style nesting-penalized score), computed exhaustively over production code, excluding test projects. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.6 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

4 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification at 17.

SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cognitive 17) · ×2view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt:64

VariableSerializerKt.toJsonPathWithValue (cognitive 16)integration/common/variable-serializer/src/main/kotlin/VariableSerializer.kt:58

TaskEventCollectorService.update (cognitive 16)integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt:155

What to do

Bring the 4 bodies over 15 down to 15 or less in Cognitive Complexity — start with SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cognitive 17), SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cognitive 17), VariableSerializerKt.toJsonPathWithValue (cognitive 16). — This score is capped by its worst body, so a finding fixed alone moves it by almost nothing — the next one down takes its place. Refactoring these 4 together lifts Cognitive Complexity from 9.6 to about 10.0/10, projected with the scoring formula itself and assuming each lands exactly at 15.
Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Prevented (currently Verified). — Hardens enforcement from Verified toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d2_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D3 · God Classes9.3 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Over-large classes that try to do too much ("god classes").

Method: God-class detection by line and method-count thresholds per logical type (partial classes unified), filtered for generated code and registration/contract false positives. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.3 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

3 god class(es) detected.

TooManyMethods: MongoViewService · ×3view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:84

What to do

Resolve the 3 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with MongoViewService.kt, BuiltInPublishDelegateParseListener.kt, SimpleTaskPoolService.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce God Classes in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d3_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D4 · Code Duplication9.4 / 10Stronggated by 31 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Copy-pasted code that should be shared instead.

Method: Code duplication via token-stream sliding windows with type-aware normalization (locals masked, type names preserved), density-scored per KLoC of production code. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.4 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

27 duplicated block group(s) detected. A further 4 rows report members as variants of one another; they aggregate block groups already counted above and are not themselves counted.

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×4core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:13

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×4view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:91

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:17

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2)integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/assigner/ProcessVariableChangeAssigningService.kt:30

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2)integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricProcessInstanceEventExtensions.kt:17

+ 19 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with TaskEventMappers.kt, Converters.kt, MongoViewService.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 4 Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt, Converters.kt, ProcessDefinitionMongoService.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
Resolve the 2 Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) finding(s) in Code Duplication — start with DataEntryComparator.kt, TaskComparator.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d4_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D5 · Coupling9.0 / 10Stronggated by 3 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether volatile projects sit underneath others that depend on them (so their churn ripples upward), and whether project dependencies form cycles. A widely-depended-on but stable shared/kernel project is healthy, not penalised.

Method: Dependency cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, plus Martin instability (afferent/efferent) per project. Exhaustive over the reference graph, deterministic.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: afferent/efferent coupling + cycles computed over every production type — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

24 production modules (Maven), 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on module(s). Read from the build's own module declarations; 3 module(s) off the main sequence, with abstractness counted on 23 of the 24 (the rest declare no modelled class or interface, export only macros, declare types in source no model reads, or have no source directory of their own).

Off the main sequence: polyflow-spring-utils · ×3

What to do

Resolve the 3 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 warning-level).
Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d5_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)9.5 / 10Stronggated by 2 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether a class's methods are focused on a single responsibility.

Method: LCOM4 cohesion per production class with at least two methods: connected components of methods sharing state or calls, computed syntactically. Deterministic, not a proxy.

Coverage: Exhaustive · type-level: LCOM4 cohesion computed over every production class — the population is all types, not a name convention.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 of 44 classes have LCOM4 above 3.

Low cohesion: ProcessInstanceAggregate (LCOM4 6) · ×2core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt:21

What to do

Resolve the 2 Low cohesion finding(s) in Cohesion (LCOM4) — start with ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt, TaskEventCollectorService.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 warning-level).
Enforce Cohesion (LCOM4) in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.

Detailed fixes: d6_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D7 · Architectural Integrity10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the code respects its intended layering / architecture rules.

Method: Enforcement rung (Prevented/Verified/Documented) per checkable ADR via Roslyn, plus dependency cycles via the engine shared with D5/AX3. Deterministic, exact.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

All 10 mechanizable ADR(s) are enforced: 5 by analyzers, 5 by tests. Dependency cycles not checked (no project-reference graph; where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there).

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d7_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D13 · Secret Scanning10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets (keys, tokens, passwords) have leaked into the code.

Method: In-process native secret scanner (entropy plus signature patterns) across all tracked files; no external tool. A clean result is a measured 10, not no-data zero. Deterministic.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d13_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Files that change often and are also complex — the riskiest hotspots.

Method: Per production file churn times cyclomatic complexity over a rolling window, computed from git and Roslyn/JS/Razor analysis. Exhaustive, deterministic per commit date.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d15_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D17 · Explicit Debt9.8 / 10Stronggated by 18 serious findings✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Acknowledged debt left in the code — TODOs, dead code, suppressed warnings.

Method: Roslyn syntactic debt markers (suppressions/TODO/FIXME/HACK/empty-catch/commented-code/Obsolete) plus SymbolFinder dead-code analysis; weighted-debt-per-KLoC density deducted 2.0x per unit. Deterministic, exhaustive.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 9.8 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Prevented

18 deducted task-comment markers across 19762 LoC (0.1/KLoC) → score 9.8. Task comments only: this repository's language is read without a compiler, so D17's suppression, dead-code and commented-out-code arms did not run and this score counts fewer marker kinds than a .NET repository's would.

FixmeComment · ×9core/datapool/datapool-core/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/datapool/core/business/upcaster/DataEntryCreatedEventUpcasterTest.kt:44

TodoComment · ×9core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/task/TaskAggregateEngineTaskCommandFilter.kt:33

What to do

Resolve the 9 FixmeComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with TaskWithDataEntriesRepositoryExtensionImpl.kt (2), DataEntryCreatedEventUpcasterTest.kt, AbstractDataEntryCommandSender.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 warning-level).
Resolve the 9 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with AnnotationBasedSingleEventUpcaster.kt (2), PolyflowMongoServiceTestBase.kt (2), TaskAggregateEngineTaskCommandFilter.kt. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (9 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.

Detailed fixes: d17_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D19 · Documentation QualityExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the project's documentation is clear, complete, and useful.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic doc sample (READMEs plus first 25 architecture docs), with two-pass stability filtering. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

The repository's root README and docs/introduction/ directory provide a clear overview (Polyflow Taskpool and Datapool; why use it; where to start; getting in touch) plus an architecture document. The project-setup guide is the longest single doc (695 words), covering version control, build, integration tests, Camunda profiles, database schema, build modes, MkDocs setup, and a deployment-scenarios chapter. There are no missing-usage or missing-installation findings because usage examples appear in docs/examples/index.md; the only unshown section is the one clipped by the scanner. The documentation is well structured with headings and an outline for every named document. The repository's documentation is comprehensive and well-structured: a single README (the root one) gives an overview of what the project does and where to find installation/usage/contribution guidance; architecture/design docs cover process-specific vs. process-agnostic components, CQRS implementation decisions, migration guides, component examples, usage scenarios, and detailed distributed-Axon-server local and Kafka integration with accompanying diagrams; every document in the 51 architecture/Docs markdown files is named and present in the outline.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d19_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D20 · ADR QualityStrong◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether architecture decisions are recorded well (context, decision, consequences).

Method: Per-ADR judgment by language model at low temperature with two-pass stability; confidence is share of ADRs evaluated; enforcement-field presence detected deterministically. Advisory.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Strong / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

Evaluated 13 ADR(s) individually; mean quality 8.5/10 (consistently complete and clear). 1 flagged with a specific gap.

Context is only one sentence and lacks any problem statement (e.g. why an ADR convention matters)specs/adr/000-adr-conventions.md

What to do

Resolve the 1 Context is only one sentence and lacks any problem statement (e.g. why… finding(s) in ADR Quality — start with 000-adr-conventions.md. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).

Detailed fixes: d20_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D21 · Naming ConsistencyExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether names — types, methods, variables — are clear and consistent.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature (0.0-0.1) on a deterministic random symbol sample (fixed size, not exhaustive), with disclosed confidence band. Advisory, sampled.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d21_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D25 · ADR ConformanceExemplary◐ Sampled · advisory

What it measures: Whether the code actually follows the decisions recorded in the project's ADRs.

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature against ADRs plus a deterministic structural code summary; findings linked to repo-rooted ADR paths for traceability. Advisory.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective Exemplary / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Verified

2 conform / 0 violate across 13 ADRs.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d25_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D26 · Project Cohesion10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether each project is a focused, coherent unit rather than an oversized grab-bag.

Method: Project size overshoot penalties (LoC / public-type count / namespace count, 2-of-3 flag) weighted by log magnitude. Exhaustive across projects, deterministic, LLM-independent.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 of 23 build units (Maven) flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d26_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D28 · Secrets (history)10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

What it measures: Whether any secrets were ever committed — scanned across the full git history, not just now.

Method: Secret scan via TWO gitleaks detect passes in an isolated checkout — the full git history, then a second --no-git pass over the working tree as it stands — merged and de-duplicated by (rule, file, line); each match flagged High. Both invocations are recorded in the audit trail. Exhaustive; when the tool is absent, or when its output cannot be parsed into the expected shape, the dimension is WITHHELD as an explicit measurement gap on our side — unscored and excluded from the lens, never a hedged middling score.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d28_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)0.9 / 10Critical✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Real static-analysis (SAST) findings — likely security bugs in the code, any language.

Method: Polyglot static analysis via semgrep across the repo using the pinned, image-baked p/security-audit + p/owasp-top-ten rulesets (no scan-time registry fetch); severity rules (ERROR/WARNING/INFO) map to a full-band severity-weighted score. Exhaustive, deterministic; degrades on parse failure.

Coverage: semgrep pattern rules over all files — exhaustive for the rule set, blind to classes of bug without a rule (clean = no rule matched).

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 0.9 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

29 finding(s): 0 critical, 27 high, 2 medium, 0 low. 14 unpinned-GitHub-Actions row(s) are reported here but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), which measures that posture as `pinned_actions` — one pinning decision is charged once, not once per lens. Separately, one or more rules could not re-parse an embedded snippet in 2 file(s) (e.g. a workflow `run:` block read as shell). Those files WERE scanned and their other rows are unaffected; only those rules' view of those snippets is missing.

REDACTED

+ 5 more group(s) — more in Appendix A; the complete list is findings.md.

What to do

Resolve the 4 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (2), REDACTED, REDACTED. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 issue-level).
Resolve the 3 REDACTED finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with REDACTED (3). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (3 issue-level).
No action in Static Analysis (SAST) — all 14 REDACTED finding(s) are reported here at file:line but scored by D36 (supply-chain provenance), so none is charged to this dimension. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (14 issue-level, 0 of them charged here).

Detailed fixes: d29_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D35 · Change Coupling10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether files that change together actually belong together — pairs that repeatedly co-change in git history despite having no explicit code dependency, surfacing the hidden/logical coupling (and boundaries in the wrong place) a static scan can't see.

Method: Pairwise co-occurrence over the per-commit file sets in git history (production source only — tests and generated dropped): Degree-of-Coupling = shared ÷ min individual revisions, reported above noise floors (each file ≥10 revisions, ≥5 shared commits, ≥50% strength); sweeping commits excluded. Deterministic over fixed history.

Coverage: Population: PRODUCTION source files only — test and generated files are dropped before pairing, so a class co-changing with its own test (trivially ~100%) can't drown the real production↔production coupling. Pairs ranked by Degree-of-Coupling. A non-source file is never a coupling PARTICIPANT either: documentation, schemas, config and data files are dropped with the rest, so a code↔docs pair — a command and the reference page that restates it — is not reported however strongly the two co-change; nor is coupling that runs THROUGH a build step or config file.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d35_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing2.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the build pipeline provides supply-chain integrity — generated provenance/attestation, signed artifacts (cosign/sigstore), an SBOM, and pinned build actions. Presence of the configuration, not a runtime guarantee.

Method: Supply-chain provenance/signing read deterministically from CI/build config (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines, Jenkinsfile, .circleci) + the release surface: four signals — generated provenance/attestation (SLSA/in-toto/actions-attest), artifact signing (cosign/sigstore/gitsign), an SBOM (syft/sbom-action/*.spdx.json/*.cdx.json), and SHA-pinned build actions — scored 10·present/denom. NotApplicable without a build pipeline. Detects configuration presence, not runtime enforcement.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 2.5 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

1/4 supply-chain integrity signals present (provenance, signing, SBOM, pinned actions).

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Supply-chain Provenance & Signing. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d36_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy4.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether the repository publishes a coordinated-vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md or security.txt) with a reporting contact, so finders know how to report a vulnerability. Presence of a policy file with a contact, not whether the policy is adequate or honoured.

Method: Vulnerability-disclosure policy read deterministically from the repo: a SECURITY.md (root/.github/docs) or .well-known/security.txt / security.txt, regex-checked for a reporting contact (email / URL / mailto). Present + contact → 10; present without a contact → 4; NotApplicable when no policy file exists (it may live off-repo). Detects the policy file's presence + contact, not its adequacy.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 4.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

A vulnerability-disclosure policy (SECURITY.md) is present but lists no reporting contact.

REDACTED

What to do

Resolve the 1 REDACTED finding(s) in Vulnerability-disclosure Policy. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).

Detailed fixes: d37_recommendation.md · top locations in Appendix A, every location in findings.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

D44 · Platform End-of-Life10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

What it measures: Whether anyone still ships security patches for the platform this repository RUNS ON — the runtime it pins and the framework majors its own constraints hold it to. Separate from D12 because the question differs: a current Django on an end-of-life Python is perfectly up to date and completely unsupported, and the fix is a migration rather than a version bump. What the repository says it merely SUPPORTS is never charged.

Method: End-of-life PLATFORM read from the repository's own declarations and graded against a FROZEN, dated table of vendor support dates — no network, no feed, no API, so this dimension answers identically inside a closed scan fence. Two subjects: a RUNTIME the project pins (a single or all-end-of-life TargetFramework, a .nvmrc or .python-version, a requires-python CAP) and a FRAMEWORK major a dependency constraint cannot move off (a caret, tilde or exact version; `vue@^2.7.16` pins Vue 2). A FLOOR is deliberately never charged — `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what a package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on — and a multi-target project is charged only when EVERY target is out of support. Runtime 4.0/product capped 8.0, framework 1.5 capped 4.5. The table is safe to freeze because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false: it loses recall as it ages, never precision, and a test asserts every entry predates the freeze date. Disjoint from D31 (a container image's OS layer) and D29 (the toolchain a CI workflow installs). Abstains when the repository declares no platform this pass reads — never scores it clean.

Maturity: Documented → Verified → Prevented · effective 10.0 / 10 · rule-coverage 100% · ceiling Documented

0 end-of-life runtime(s) and 0 end-of-life framework(s), read from 2 platform declaration(s) and 38 dependency declaration(s). This dimension reads what the repository says about ITSELF — a pinned target framework, a version file, a capped requires-python, a Rust toolchain pin, a framework major a constraint cannot move off. A FLOOR is deliberately never charged: `requires-python = ">=3.8"` states what the package SUPPORTS, not what it runs on, and a well-maintained library declares exactly that while running its own CI on a current release. The end-of-life facts are FROZEN and dated, so this dimension needs no network and answers identically inside a closed scan fence; as the table ages it loses recall and never precision, because a statement about support that ended in the past cannot become false. The OS layer of a container image is D31's question and the toolchain a CI workflow installs is D29's; this row is neither.

✓ On the Gold path — maintain.

Detailed fixes: d44_recommendation.md.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

R = React/JS · M = Maturity · P = Readiness.

AX1 · Captive dependencies10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether any singleton service captures a scoped/transient dependency — a silent lifetime/threading bug.

Method: Roslyn scan: DI registrations parsed from AddSingleton/Scoped/Transient; each singleton checked for captured shorter-lifetime dependencies. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX10 · Code composition8.1 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — How the codebase splits by code ROLE — domain, application, infrastructure, test, generated. The significance map behind the knowledge/coupling weighting, and a DDD signal in its own right: a thin domain core under fat infrastructure is the anemic-domain smell, quantified. How each file's role is decided, because the split is only as good as that: a generated name or a build-output tree makes it Generated, a test project makes it Test, and otherwise the file's NAMESPACE and PATH words are matched against fixed vocabularies in a fixed ORDER — domain, then infrastructure, then application — so a file whose words hit two layers is counted under the earlier one. A production file matching none of them counts as application, so that share reads 'application or unclassified' rather than a measured application layer. Roles come from naming convention, never from what the code does. On this repository the split was taken from the source tree on disk rather than from a loaded .NET workspace, so a file's role is decided by its PATH segments alone — no declared namespace was available to add to the evidence — and generated output is excluded from the census entirely rather than counted as a generated share.

Method: Roslyn line-count by code ROLE: every source file classified Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated by namespace + path convention (the shared CodeRoleClassifier), then significant lines summed per role. Deterministic; the advisory score is the business-logic (domain+application) share of production code.

Coverage: Population: ALL source files, each bucketed into ONE of five roles (Domain/Application/Infrastructure/Test/Generated) by namespace + path convention — a file whose layer isn't named in the convention falls to Application (the neutral default), and the split is line-count, not semantic depth or business value.

What to do

The domain core is a small share of production code, but most of the rest matched no layer vocabulary at all — so this is not yet an anemic-domain finding. The namespace/path convention could not place that code, which makes the composition above a statement about the naming, not about the design. Name the layers (or check that the repository's conventions differ from the ones this check knows) before reading a thin domain into it.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX2 · Stateful singletons6.7 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether singleton services avoid mutable shared instance state that concurrent callers would race on.

Method: Roslyn scan: singleton field mutations unguarded by lock or Interlocked, per type; syntax-based guard detection. Deterministic, traceable per field.

`SimpleProcessDefinitionService` is a singleton (@Component: the container shares one instance across every request thread) but mutates instance state outside any lock (processDefinitions; e.g. `processDefinitions` in `on` at line 37). — view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleProcessDefinitionService.kt:27
`ProcessDefinitionService` is a singleton (@Component: the container shares one instance across every request thread) but mutates instance state outside any lock (processDefinitions; e.g. `processDefinitions` in `getProcessDefinitions` at line 33). — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/definition/ProcessDefinitionService.kt:19

What to do

Java/Kotlin: keep container singletons stateless — move per-request data into locals or a request-scoped bean — or back the state with java.util.concurrent types (ConcurrentHashMap, AtomicInteger/AtomicReference), guard it with synchronized / a Lock (Kotlin: withLock), or mark a flag that is only ever overwritten volatile (@Volatile).

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX3 · Project dependency cycles10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether the project-reference graph is acyclic (cycles block independent build/deploy and signal eroding boundaries).

Method: Project reference cycles via elementary-DFS over real .csproj references, using the engine shared with D5/D7; cyclic versus acyclic. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

AX4 · Dependency direction5.8 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Other · Architecture — Whether dependencies point inward (Domain ← Application ← Infrastructure/Web) — the clean-architecture dependency rule, checked across the project graph.

Method: Layer violations by name-segment inference (Domain/Core to Application to Infrastructure/Web) over the project-reference graph. Exhaustive over all projects, deterministic.

`polyflow-datapool-core` is a Domain project but references `polyflow-datapool-api`, a Web project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
`polyflow-taskpool-core` is a Domain project but references `polyflow-taskpool-api`, a Web project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.

What to do

Keep dependencies pointing inward: domain/application define interfaces, infrastructure/web implement them (Dependency Inversion).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM1 · Aggregate boundaries10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether aggregates reference each other by identity (id) rather than by direct object reference — the core DDD consistency-boundary rule.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): aggregate roots identified by convention; each aggregate field checked for direct references to other aggregates versus id-only. Deterministic, DDD-native.

Coverage: Population: aggregate roots identified by AggregateRoot/IAggregateRoot base/interface NAME convention; reference-by-identity then checked exhaustively within that set — a root not using those names is invisible.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM11 · Constructible invalid state7.7 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether an aggregate can be constructed in a state its own rules forbid — a public constructor that takes a raw primitive, stores it, and validates nothing, with no factory beside it. A constructor taking only value objects is not counted: each parameter has already validated itself.

Method: Neutral surface (DDD-gated): each non-abstract entity/aggregate checked for a PUBLIC constructor taking at least one RAW PRIMITIVE parameter whose body contains no guard token (throw / Guard. / Ensure. / ArgumentException / CheckRule), on a type that also offers no static Create/Of/From/New factory. A constructor taking only value objects is never charged -- measured: 64 of 87 unguarded public constructors on the C# corpus take value objects only, so ignoring parameter types would be 73% false positives. One finding per entity. Deterministic.

`DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity`'s public constructor takes `entryType`, `entryId`, `path`, `value` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity.kt:18
`TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity`'s public constructor takes `taskId`, `path`, `value` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse. — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/task/TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity.kt:16

What to do

Give each aggregate one way in that can refuse — a guarded constructor, value-object parameters that validate themselves, or a private constructor behind a factory that returns a failure.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids3.0 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — How much of the domain uses strongly-typed ids vs raw Guid/string/int — adoption curve, not all-or-nothing.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): strongly-typed id adoption on domain entities/events; raw Guid/int/string ids counted versus wrapped types. An id wrapper is recognised by VALUE SEMANTICS, not by being a struct — a record struct, a record class (`record ApartmentId(Guid Value)`) or a class declared by a typed-id base (`class MemberId : TypedIdValueBase`) all count, while a plain mutable class (reference equality) and a verb-phrase query record (`GetCustomerById`) do not. Deterministic, adoption percentage.

Coverage: Population: id-like members by *Id/*Key NAME suffix; strongly-typed-ID shape then checked semantically — non-suffixed identifiers are not seen.

`TaskAssignmentUpdatedEngineEvent.taskDefinitionKey` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/api/task/TaskEvents.kt:160
`ProcessDefinitionAggregate.processDefinitionId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessDefinitionAggregate.kt:26
`ProcessInstanceAggregate.processInstanceId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that. — core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt:24

What to do

Adopt strongly-typed ids across the domain — finish the migration or document the boundary; primitive ids invite transposed-argument bugs.

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM5 · Encapsulated state3.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether entities protect their state — private/init-only setters, and collections handed out as read-only views rather than the mutable backing collection — instead of exposing writable state that bypasses invariants. Softened when a rehydration framework (Marten/EF) is present.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): entities scanned for publicly writable state — public setters, and (C#/VB) own mutable collections handed out through an auto-property, a public field or a bare-field expression getter, where a computed/copying getter is never charged. One finding per entity; score softened when Marten/EF rehydration frameworks present. Deterministic, framework-aware.

Coverage: Population: entities by convention; encapsulation (setter shape) checked exhaustively within the set.

`ProcessDefinitionAggregate` exposes publicly writable state (processDefinitionId). — core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessDefinitionAggregate.kt:23
`ProcessInstanceAggregate` exposes publicly writable state (processInstanceId). — core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt:21

What to do

Make entity setters private/init-only and hand collections out as IReadOnlyList/IReadOnlyCollection over a private backing field; change state only through methods that enforce the invariants (Marten/EF can bind via constructor or private setters).

Do you agree with this assessment?

DM8 · Value-object opportunities10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Domain Modelling — Whether clusters of primitives that travel together (a missing value object) are extracted — a low-weight suggestion, LLM-confirmed when configured.

Method: Roslyn (DDD-gated): primitive parameter clusters recurring three or more times across signatures extracted, then confirmed by language model when configured. Advisory, low-weight.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES1 · Fold determinism10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether Apply/When folds reconstruct state purely from the event (no DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random or IO) so replay is reproducible.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan (event-sourcing gated): Apply/When folds checked for forbidden tokens (DateTime.Now, Guid.NewGuid, Random, IO), stripped of comments/strings. Deterministic, hard fact per fold.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES2 · Immutable events10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether persisted events are immutable facts (init-only/readonly) — a settable event member lets stored history be rewritten.

Method: Roslyn scan (event-sourcing gated): persisted events checked for public setters; immutability verified per property/field. Deterministic, hard fact.

Do you agree with this assessment?

ES3 · PII in the event store10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Event Sourcing — Whether the append-only event log avoids un-erasable personal data (or has a crypto-shredding strategy) — a GDPR right-to-erasure risk.

Method: Roslyn (event-sourcing gated): high-confidence PII flagged Warning; ambiguous name-like fields adjudicated by language model as person versus fictional. Advisory without model, definitive with.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M1 · Documentation (README)4.5 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo and its projects have a README, and whether it's substantive and current.

Method: Filesystem scan: README presence, word count, and headings for depth; git history for staleness. Exhaustive across root and project dirs, deterministic.

51 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

What to do

Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
Explain in the README how to run the tests. Add a section called Testing to the README in the repository's top folder, saying how to run the test suite.
Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
Add a README to the 32 of 32 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Review the README against recent changes; refresh the parts that drifted.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M2 · Architecture documentation8.5 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether key decisions (ADRs) and the high-level shape (C4/diagrams) are written down.

Method: Filesystem scan: ADR folder/naming conventions or content, plus Mermaid/PlantUML/C4/architecture.md discovery. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Grow the ADR log (currently 13) — reach 20 to raise the maturity tier; document significant decisions as they're made.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M3 · Folder & project structure10.0 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the repo is organised deliberately — src/test separation and consistent project naming.

Method: Filesystem scan: src/test folder separation and namespace-prefix consistency (majority RootNamespace agreement). Exhaustive across projects, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

M4 · Documentation accuracy0.0 / 10Critical◐ Sampled · advisory

Maturity · Maturity — Whether the README actually describes the code that exists (LLM-judged, advisory).

Method: Judged by language model at low temperature: README accuracy versus actual projects, within a disclosed tolerance. Advisory, not a measured number.

docs/migration-guide/index.md documents the environment variable `POLYFLOW_LIQUIBASE_ADOPTION_ENABLED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/migration-guide/index.md:57
docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:384
docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:385
docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:386
docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md links to `./core-taskpool`, but `docs/reference-guide/components/core-taskpool` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:443
docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md:127
docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md:128
docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md:129
docs/reference-guide/components/view-jpa.md names `application.yaml`, but no file or folder `application.yaml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/view-jpa.md:41
docs/reference-guide/components/view-mongo.md names `application.yaml`, but no file or folder `application.yaml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/view-mongo.md:52
docs/reference-guide/components/view-simple.md names `application.yaml`, but no file or folder `application.yaml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/components/view-simple.md:44
docs/reference-guide/configuration/persistence.md documents the environment variable `CAPITAL_CASE`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong. — docs/reference-guide/configuration/persistence.md:172

What to do

Reconcile the README with reality: docs/migration-guide/index.md documents the environment variable `POLYFLOW_LIQUIBASE_ADOPTION_ENABLED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists; docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md links to `./core-taskpool`, but `docs/reference-guide/components/core-taskpool` does not exist.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P1 · CI/CD gates10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether an automated pipeline builds and tests every change.

Method: Filesystem scan: CI workflow files (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, etc.) for build and test stages. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P10 · Library API & versioning6.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — For a library: a deliberate (small) public API surface and explicit semantic versioning so consumers can depend on it safely.

Method: Roslyn scan: public API surface area and semantic-versioning markers (SemVer attributes, changelog entries) for libraries; off .NET, a library is the ecosystem's publication act (an npm package that is not private and names an entry point, a PyPI distribution with a build system, a Rust library crate, a Maven/Gradle module that publishes, a Go module with no package main, a gemspec, a Composer library, a SwiftPM library product, a pub.dev or Hex package), its surface is the share of types the language model records as public (Rust, Swift, Java, Kotlin, Go, Dart; not measured where the model records no type visibility or, as in TypeScript, only module-level export), and its version is read from the manifest, a semver CHANGELOG, release tooling or semver git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

675/682 types (99%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

What to do

Keep implementation types off the public surface (Kotlin: `internal`) so internals can change without breaking consumers.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P3 · Security & performance tooling7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether SAST, secret/dependency scanning and performance benchmarking are wired in (presence, not runtime).

Method: Filesystem scan: SAST configuration, dependency-update automation, secret scanning, and a benchmark harness or benchmark step — in this repository's own ecosystem. Exhaustive, deterministic.

What to do

Dependabot is configured but does not watch `pip` — add that `package-ecosystem` entry to REDACTED so those dependencies get the same automatic update and advisory pressure as the ones it already covers.
Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P4 · Deployment & Rollback7.0 / 10Strong✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are automated and safely reversible (probes, rolling updates, approval gates) — from manifests/pipeline files, not the live environment.

Method: Filesystem scan: deployment manifests/IaC (K8s YAML, Helm, Terraform) for rolling updates, probes, approval gates, migration hooks. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P6 · Release Hygiene5.0 / 10Adequate✓ Tool-verified

Readiness · Readiness — Whether releases are traceable — a maintained changelog and explicit version stamping.

Method: Filesystem scan: changelog file presence and version tags in csproj or git tags. Exhaustive, deterministic.

No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

What to do

Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release.

Do you agree with this assessment?

P8 · Schema migrations10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Readiness · Readiness — Whether database schema changes go through versioned migrations rather than being auto-created from the model at startup.

Method: Roslyn scan: EF Core DbContext for a versioned migrations directory versus bare EnsureCreated usage; off .NET, a file scan of dependency manifests, migration histories (Flyway, Liquibase, Alembic, Django, Rails, Prisma, TypeORM, Knex/Sequelize, golang-migrate, goose, Laravel, Doctrine, Diesel/sqlx) and schema auto-create in production source or config. Exhaustive, deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X1 · Async correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the code avoids sync-over-async (deadlock-prone blocking on tasks) and async void.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: async methods scanned for .Wait()/.GetAwaiter().GetResult() and async-void outside event handlers. Deterministic, hard fact per invocation.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X12 · Unreachable branch10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether any branch is dead by construction — a switch arm whose label can never equal a case-normalised subject, or an `else if` whose predicate the arm above has already swallowed.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: switch labels compared against the subject's own case normaliser, and if/else-if chains checked for a literal an earlier arm's containment test already swallows. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X13 · Undrained process stream10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a child process that has BOTH standard streams redirected drains both — reading one to the end while the other is never read deadlocks once the child fills the unread pipe.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: ProcessStartInfo launches with both streams redirected, checked for a drain of each stream across the enclosing type. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `spawn` imported from `child_process` whose stdout and stderr are both pipes (no options, no `stdio`, or `stdio` of `'pipe'`), bound to a local that never leaves its scope, where exactly one of the two streams is read, the other never, and the child’s `close`/`exit` (or the read stream’s end) is awaited; a shell redirect in the call’s arguments or a `kill` of the child suppresses it. The same rule reads Python’s `subprocess.Popen`, Dart’s `Process.start`, Ruby’s `Open3.popen3`, and Scala’s JDK process starts (`new ProcessBuilder(…).start()` with no `redirectErrorStream`/`redirectError`/`redirectOutput`/`inheritIO`, `Runtime.getRuntime.exec`) where one of `getInputStream`/`getErrorStream` is read and the other never while `waitFor()` is called or the read stream is read to its end. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X14 · Bypassable address classification10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a hand-rolled public/private IP check can be walked past — a method that unwraps IPv4-mapped IPv6 but returns the opposite verdict for the same host written as IPv4-compatible, 6to4 or NAT64.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that unwrap IPv4-mapped IPv6 and hand-roll IPv4 range carve-outs, checked for whether the IPv6 branch also accounts for the IPv4-compatible, 6to4 and NAT64 embeddings. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X15 · Unvalidated length from an untrusted reader10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a length read out of the stream being parsed is bounded before it is allocated or read — an unchecked count taken from the input lets the input choose the allocation.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: integer lengths read from a BinaryReader and spent on a bulk read or an array allocation, checked for any comparison or bounding call on the value anywhere in the method. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X16 · Unfloored truncation loop10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a loop that shortens a string until it fits a length budget has a floor — one with none grinds the value down to the empty string, or past it into a negative-length `Substring`.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: while/do loops whose body's only effect on a string is to drop its last character, checked for whether anything — a direct comparison on the length, a body guard, a break — bounds that length below. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `while`/`do` loop whose body’s one assignment to a value is `x = x.slice(0, -1)` or `x = x.slice|substring|substr(0, x.length - 1)`, driven by a condition that reads `x.length` only as a term of a larger expression — never compared directly, never tested for truthiness, and with no other read of `x` — and whose body has no `break`, `return`, `throw` or `if` naming `x`. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X17 · Uncapped recursion over a caller-supplied document10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Security — Whether a walk that recurses through a JSON/XML tree handed in by its caller bounds how deep it will go — an uncapped walk lets the document's nesting choose the stack depth, and the resulting StackOverflowException cannot be caught.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: methods that take a JSON/XML document node and call themselves with a child of it, reachable from an externally-callable member of the same type that accepts a document, checked for any depth parameter, descent counter or threaded arithmetic anywhere in the walk. On a repository with no .NET source it reads TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths and `.d.ts` not) with the same rule: a function or method with a parameter typed as a document value — `unknown`, `any`, `object`, `Record<string, unknown|any>`, a JSON alias (`JsonValue`, `JSONObject`, …) or a DOM node global the file does not rebind — that calls itself (bare, or through `this` for a method, or hands itself to a call over the value as in `value.map(walk)`) with something it took out of that value and never through an ancestor accessor such as `closest()` or `parentElement`, that is exported or reached from an exported function (a public method of the same exported class) taking such a value, and that names no depth, level, nesting, recursion, remaining or budget anywhere and threads no `+`/`-` arithmetic through a self-call. Plain JavaScript is not read: with no annotation nothing tells a parsed document from a tree the code built itself. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X18 · Disposal-pattern correctness10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a type's disposal matches what it OWNS — releasing what it created, leaving alone what it was handed, and not declaring a finalizer for state that has nothing unmanaged to finalize.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: every assignment to a disposable field is read to decide whether the type CREATED the value or was handed it, and the type's disposal is checked against that answer — an injected interface it disposes, a value it constructed and never releases, a finalizer on a type holding nothing unmanaged, and a disposable local whose every reference is a plain member read. A value handed to a container that disposes its contents (a parent control's `Controls` collection, a component `IContainer`) is released by that container and is not reported; generated code is out of population. On a repository with no .NET source the same ownership questions are read in JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored, generated and minified paths not): a class declaring `dispose()`, `[Symbol.dispose]()` or `[Symbol.asyncDispose]()` that disposes a field it was handed through a constructor parameter typed as a repository interface or resolved by a dependency-injection container; that assigns a field only ever from `new X(…)` of a disposable class and neither releases it anywhere in the class nor names it in its disposal member or a method that member calls, nor hands it to anything else; and a `const`/`let` local built from literals only whose every reference opens a statement operating on a non-release member of it. A class is disposable when every repository declaration of its name declares or inherits a disposal member, or when it is a documented library disposable (`vscode` EventEmitter, CancellationTokenSource and Disposable; three.js geometries, materials, textures, render targets, renderers, controls and composers). The finalizer arm has no JavaScript counterpart: a class cannot declare one. Dart is read for the owned-and-never-released arm: a Flutter `State` (or a class declaring `dispose()`/`close()`) whose library-private field is written only with direct creations of a framework controller, `FocusNode`, `StreamController` or periodic `Timer` (or a `.listen(…)` into a field declared `StreamSubscription`), which nothing in the class or its library releases (`dispose`/`close`/`cancel`) and which is never handed on except as a named argument. Ruby is read for the owned-and-never-released arm and the abandoned-local arm: a class declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose instance variable is written only with a blockless core descriptor creation (`File.open`/`new`, `Tempfile`, `Dir.open`, `IO.popen`, the `socket` and `openssl` socket classes) that no method of the class closes and that is never handed on (passed, returned, stored, exposed by `attr_reader`, delegated) — a class whose superclass or mixin lies outside the repository is not judged — and a blockless creation read through and dropped (`File.open(path).read`) or held in a local that is never closed, returned, passed or stored (a `&:read` block-pass, an `autoclose: false` borrow and a `fileno` hand-over are not abandonment). PHP is read for the same two arms: a class (not a trait, and not one using a trait) declaring an instance `close`, `dispose`, `shutdown`, `stop`, `disconnect` or `terminate` whose `private` property (or a `final` class's `protected` one) is written only with a direct core `fopen`, `tmpfile`, `popen`, `proc_open`, `fsockopen`, `stream_socket_client`/`server` or `opendir` that nothing in the class closes (`fclose`, `pclose`, `closedir`, `unset`, a reset to `null`) and that is never handed on, and a handle held in a function's local, or read through as the argument of a reader, that is never closed, returned, passed, captured or stored; a `php://` stream, `curl_init`, `SplFileObject`, `PDO` and a function the repository declares under the core name are not read. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X19 · Unrestored process-global state10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that temporarily changes state belonging to the whole process — the working directory, an environment variable — puts it back on EVERY path: a restore reached only when nothing throws leaks the change to the rest of the process.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: method bodies that write the process working directory or an environment variable and write it back in the same body, checked for whether that restore sits in a `finally`/`catch` or only on the straight-line path. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads production JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not): `process.chdir`, `process.env.NAME =`/`["NAME"] =` and `delete process.env.NAME`, and Deno’s `Deno.chdir`/`Deno.env.set`/`Deno.env.delete`, paired per function body (a nested function or arrow is its own body, and module top-level code is none), where the last write puts back a local the body captured from the same global or deletes a variable the first write set, with at least one statement between them; a write in a `catch`/`finally` of that body silences it. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X20 · Mistyped argument guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether an argument guard throws the exception its own condition describes — a guard that rejects a value for being EMPTY and reports it as `NullPointerException` (Java, Kotlin, Scala), `ArgumentError.notNull` (Dart) or `ArgumentNullException` (F#'s `nullArg`) tells the caller a parameter was null when it provably was not.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(p))` statements controlled by an `if`, whose condition is read for a test that is true of a NON-null `p` — an emptiness test that dereferences it (`p.Count == 0`, `!p.Any()`) or a BCL predicate documented true of the empty value (`string.IsNullOrEmpty(p)`). Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X21 · Side-effecting pattern guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `when` guard is free of side effects — a guard that increments a counter or assigns while deciding whether its arm matches applies that change during PATTERN MATCHING, on an arm that may not be selected, and skips it entirely when a short-circuit to its left answers first.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `when` guards on case labels and switch-expression arms, read for a mutation (`++`/`--`/assignment) sitting in a position the guard's own `&&`/`||`/`??`/`?:`/`?.` can skip. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X22 · Contradicted release guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a method that TAKES a lock or semaphore and gives it back from a flag-guarded `finally` returns the value that flag implies — reporting success while the guard hands the primitive back admits a second caller the exclusion was there to keep out, and reporting failure while the guard keeps it leaves nothing to ever give it back.

Method: Roslyn syntax: `try` statements whose `finally` releases a synchronisation primitive under a bare local-bool guard, where the method also TOOK that same primitive before the `try`, checked for a `return` of a bool literal whose value disagrees with the flag state the method's own straight-line assignments put it in. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X23 · Unguarded diagnostic materialisation10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether the work a diagnostic log line costs is paid only when that line is wanted — C# evaluates a call's arguments BEFORE the call, so a trace/debug message joined or projected out of a collection is built in full on every pass, and then discarded by a sink the shipped configuration leaves switched off.

Method: Roslyn syntax: log calls at a diagnostic level (a `Log`-prefixed method naming Trace/Debug/Verbose, or a bare `Debug`/`Trace`/`Verbose` on a receiver named for a logger), whose argument list is read for a call whose cost scales with a sequence — a LINQ operator, a materialisation, `string.Join`, a serializer — with no enclosing level check or conditional-compilation region. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `debug`/`trace`/`verbose` call on a receiver named for a logger, or a `log`-prefixed method naming the level, whose argument calls an array operator (`map`/`filter`/`reduce`/`sort`/…), `Array.from`, `Object.keys/values/entries`, `JSON.stringify`/`util.inspect` over anything but a literal, or an array `join` — outside any arrow or function passed as an argument, which the logger calls only when the level is on — with no enclosing `if`, `&&` or `?:` whose condition names a level, a level string, or the `NODE_ENV`/`__DEV__`/`DEV` build switch. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X25 · Inert configuration knob10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value the caller is invited to supply is the value the type actually uses — a constructor parameter stored in a private field that nothing ever reads while the default it was given is spelled out a second time at the site that should have read it, a keyed lookup that falls back to a different setting than the one its key names while the same type falls back to the matching one for that same key, or a culture-sensitive parse given no format provider by a type that feeds its own settable culture to the same kind of parse elsewhere, or a number an entry point writes to standard output under the host's culture while the same entry point formats with the invariant culture elsewhere. Either way, every caller who supplies a value silently gets something else.

Method: Roslyn syntax: private instance fields of a non-partial type assigned in a constructor from one of its own parameters with a `??` fallback, checked for whether anything in the type body reads the field and whether that same fallback expression is spelled out again outside the constructor; and `??` fallbacks onto a member access from a lookup call carrying exactly one string literal, grouped by that key across the type and checked for a fallback member whose folded name disagrees with the key while a sibling site for the same key agrees with it. On a repository with no .NET source the first two arms read JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `#x`, `private` or `private` parameter-property instance field filled in the constructor from a parameter (or one member of one) through `??`/`||` or a parameter default, never read anywhere in the file by name, whose constructed default is spelled again in the class body; and `lookup("key") ?? s.member` grouped by key per class, or per module outside every class. The culture arm has no JavaScript counterpart: its parses take no locale. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X26 · Unsynchronised callback handoff10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a value handed from a callback to the body that waits on it crosses on something built to be crossed — a `Queue<T>`/`List<T>`/`Dictionary<K,V>` written inside an event handler and read back outside it is mutated by two flows at once, and the semaphore or completion source beside it orders how MANY items exist while leaving the collection's own head, tail and backing array unprotected.

Method: Roslyn syntax: method, accessor, local-function and lambda bodies that declare BOTH a non-thread-safe generic collection (`Queue`/`Stack`/`List`/`Dictionary`/`HashSet`/`Sorted*`/`LinkedList`) and a synchronisation primitive (`SemaphoreSlim`/`TaskCompletionSource`/`ManualResetEvent(Slim)`/`AutoResetEvent`/`CountdownEvent`) as locals, then read for a `+=`-registered lambda that raises that primitive while the body outside every lambda waits on it — and, in that scope, a mutating call on the collection inside the lambda paired with a mention of it outside. Any `lock` in the scope abstains it. On a repository with no .NET source the same handoff is read in Java off the engine’s own token stream (test source sets, vendored and demonstration paths not): an `ArrayList`/`LinkedList`/`ArrayDeque`/`PriorityQueue`/`Hash*`/`LinkedHash*`/`Tree*` local and a `CountDownLatch`/`Semaphore`/`CompletableFuture` local, a lambda or anonymous class that raises the primitive and mutates the collection, and a wait outside it; any `synchronized` or `lock()` abstains the body. Because each of those primitives orders what the callback wrote before raising it, only a touch that provably overlaps the callback is convicted: one after the registration and before the next wait, or one in a loop registered-before, waiting on every pass and not declaring the collection. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X27 · Collection changed while being enumerated10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a `for (x in c)` or `c.forEach { … }` leaves the collection it is walking alone — a `mutableListOf`/`ArrayList`, `mutableMapOf`/`HashMap` or `mutableSetOf`/`HashSet` is a `java.util` collection on the JVM and is walked by its own fail-fast iterator, so a body that adds to or removes from the very collection the loop is walking makes the next step throw `ConcurrentModificationException` and the remaining elements are never seen.

Method: Roslyn syntax + semantics: `foreach` statements whose body calls a structural mutator (`Add`/`Remove`/`Clear`/`Insert`/…) on the very expression the loop is enumerating. Two arms. ARM A — the source is a concrete fragile BCL collection, or a live `Keys`/`Values` view over one, and the mutator resolves to that same collection's own member; concurrent and immutable collections and arrays are outside the population by construction, since their enumerators survive a structural change. ARM B — the source is an argument-less accessor CALL on a receiver whose body is in source: the accessor must return a stored field VERBATIM and a sibling member must structurally change that same field, both read off the implementations rather than from the members' names. A mutation the loop provably exits immediately after (`break`/`return`/`throw`/`goto`), or one written inside a nested loop or a lambda, is counted and never reported. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X28 · Index access outside its own emptiness guard10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a condition that tests a value for emptiness indexes that same value only where the test holds — an `||` written one parenthesis too far to the left leaves an index access outside the guard beside it, so the empty case the guard exists to anticipate reaches the index and throws.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: the OUTERMOST `&&`/`||` of every boolean condition, read for a symbol the condition tests for emptiness (`string.IsNullOrEmpty`/`IsNullOrWhiteSpace`, a `Length`/`Count` comparison against a literal, `Any()`, a `Length`/`Count` pattern, or a comparison against `""`) and ALSO indexes. Each `symbol[...]` access is placed by a boolean-reachability walk from the access up to the outermost connective: an access is COVERED when some enclosing step has it in the right operand and the left operand, under the truth value that step forces, proves the symbol non-empty — a recursion over `&&`/`||` whose true- and false-directions are asymmetric. A finding needs BOTH an uncovered access and a covered one on the same symbol in the same condition, which is the agreeing twin that separates a misplaced parenthesis from an unrelated length test. Bare index accesses with no emptiness test in the condition are neither counted nor reported; a non-identifier receiver and a lambda nested inside the condition are outside the population. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X29 · Per-element action decided by a fixed element10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a decision taken once per element is taken ABOUT that element — a test inside a counted loop that reads a fixed subscript of the very collection its guarded statement indexes by the loop variable applies element zero's answer to all of them, so the elements that differ from it are all handled wrongly, and in the same direction.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every `for` statement declaring exactly ONE loop variable, and every `if` inside its body that is not under a nested loop or a lambda. A site enters the population when the `if`’s condition never mentions the loop variable while the statement it guards indexes some collection by that variable ALONE (`c[i]`; `c[i + 1]` and `c[i, j]` are outside it). A finding additionally needs the AGREEING TWIN at the same-collection grain: the condition must read THAT SAME collection at a subscript that does not move — written into the condition, or reached through a local declared BEFORE the loop, so an alias bound inside the body is not followed. Both collection expressions must be simple identifiers. On a repository with no .NET source the same rule reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (tests included, bundles and vendored paths not): a `for (let|var|const x = …; …; …)` with one declarator and a braced body, an alias followed only when it is declared before the loop in a block that encloses it and never assigned inside the loop. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X3 · Exception handling4.8 / 10Weak✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether exceptions are handled rather than silently swallowed or rethrown with lost stack traces.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every catch clause counted; empty catches and bare rethrows flagged. Population is all catch clauses, not estimated. Deterministic, hard fact.

`catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter. (×3) — view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TasksWithDataEntriesComparator.kt:26, view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:26, view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:28

What to do

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded)

Do you agree with this assessment?

X30 · Support guard that admits what it rejects10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether a guard written as a NEGATED `||` says what its author meant — `!(a || b || x != k)` is `!a && !b && x == k` by De Morgan, so a bail-out that mixes capabilities the code needs with a fault it refuses turns inside out: it fires only where the capabilities are ABSENT, and lets every value the fault term names walk straight into the body that cannot handle it.

Method: Roslyn syntax only, no semantic model: every logical-not whose operand is a parenthesised `||` chain of two or more disjuncts, flattened (a left-nested `a || b || c` read once would see `(a || b)` as one disjunct). A site enters the population on that shape alone. A finding additionally needs the disjuncts to DISAGREE in polarity: at least one bare boolean read — an identifier or member access, never an invocation, which is a predicate rather than a capability flag — and at least one `x != <constant>`, the only form that negates into an exact-value pin (`== null` negates into a looser requirement and is outside the fault set). Consistently-polarised disjunctions, all-fault or all-capability, are counted and never reported; a negated `&&` is outside the population entirely. No same-receiver gate: it was measured to cost a real defect and remove no false positive. Deterministic, provable per finding. Advisory.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X4 · Structured logging10.0 / 10Exemplary○ Nothing flagged

Other · Code Health — Whether log calls use message templates (queryable) rather than interpolated strings.

Method: Roslyn syntax scan: every log call-site counted; interpolated-string first-argument violations flagged. Population is all log calls, not estimated. On a repository with no .NET source it reads JavaScript/TypeScript off the engine’s own token stream (test, vendored and minified paths not) with the same rule: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal`/`verbose`/`silly`/`http`/`log` call on a receiver named for a logger, in a package whose own or an enclosing `package.json` declares a logger that carries values as fields (pino, pino-http, nestjs-pino, Fastify, winston, bunyan, tslog, LogTape, roarr), whose first deciding argument is a template literal with substitutions; an object-literal fields argument is stepped over, a plain string message clears the call. Python is read the same way: a `debug`/`info`/`warning`/`error`/`exception`/`critical`/`log` call on a logger in a file that imports the standard library’s `logging` or structlog (loguru, which formats at the call, is not judged), whose message is a whole f-string with a non-constant field; a `%`-formatted, `.format()`-ed or concatenated message is not convicted, as in C#. PHP is read the same way: a PSR-3 level call (`emergency`…`debug`, `log`) on a logger (`$logger`, `$this->logger`, Laravel’s `Log::`, `logger()`, `\Drupal::logger()`) in a package whose `composer.json` requires a PSR-3 logger or a framework that hands one out (psr/log, Monolog, Laravel, Symfony, Drupal, CakePHP), or a file that imports one, whose message is a double-quoted string interpolating a variable; a single-quoted message clears the call, and `sprintf` or `.` concatenation is not convicted, as in C#. Dart is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on Sentry’s structured logger (`Sentry.logger`) whose message is a whole string literal interpolating a value (`$name`, `${…}`); the `Sentry.logger.fmt` template API clears the call. Dart that logs only through loggers with one message and no fields (package:logging, package:logger, talker, dart:developer) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Ruby is read the same way: a `trace`/`debug`/`info`/`warn`/`error`/`fatal` call on the console gem’s `Console` (declared by a Gemfile, gemspec or Gemfile.lock, or required) or, where SemanticLogger, Ougai or dry-logger is declared or required, on a receiver named for a logger (`logger`, `@logger`, `Rails.logger`, `log`), whose first deciding argument is, as the whole argument, a double-quoted string interpolating a non-constant value (`#{…}`, `#@ivar`); a plain literal clears the call, keyword arguments are the fields, and a block, `%`-format or `+` concatenation is not convicted. Ruby that logs only through the standard Logger (Rails.logger) is not applicable rather than a reach gap. Deterministic.

Do you agree with this assessment?

X5 · Nullable reference types9.8 / 10Exemplary✓ Tool-verified

Other · Code Health — Whether Kotlin's null safety is not undermined by not-null assertions — `String` cannot hold null and `String?` must be checked before use in every Kotlin module, and each `!!` is a run-time `NullPointerException` the author has told the compiler cannot happen.

Method: Roslyn compiler-options scan: NullableContextOptions per project; null-forgiving (!) suppression density per 1k syntax nodes. Deterministic, adoption plus suppression penalty.

Do you agree with this assessment?

Reference — by lens

The score is the rank-weighted fold of these lenses (worst-heaviest), each including its meta-dimensions; a lens with a Critical contributor is capped at Fair (its band reads "gated by …") and is never the strongest area however high its average.

Lens	Score	Rating	Impact
Code Health	82%	Strong	Solid.
Architecture	74%	Strong	Solid.
Maturity	51%	Adequate — gated by M4	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Readiness	68%	Adequate	Acceptable, with room to improve.
Security	55%	Adequate — gated by D29, D36	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Domain Modelling	52%	Adequate — gated by DM2, DM5	Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens.
Event Sourcing	100%	Exemplary	Strongest area.

Unscored — 3 check(s) recorded observations but carry no score

These checks ran and found something, but they do not carry a score — either by design (an advisory check reports evidence rather than grading it) or because they could not be scored here. They are excluded from the score for that reason, not because there was nothing to see.

D11 Test Reliability — 1 observation(s) recorded · This repository declares 1 of its own test(s) unreliable. The built-in reliability runner does not support this repository's ecosystem (.kt), so the suite was not re-run and no reliability score is given — these are the repository's own declarations, not our measurement.
P12 CI test-gate honesty — 2 observation(s) recorded · Reported, not scored — this card publishes what the CI gate does with the test inventory rather than grading it. The findings above are its output.
X10 Duplicated predicate — 4 observation(s) recorded · Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score.

Not evidenced — 1 control(s) we could not find positive evidence for

These checks grade a working control, and the repository shows no evidence of one. That is deliberately not scored as a zero: a repository cannot show an ops runbook, a database TTL or an infrastructure-side audit log, so absence of evidence here is not evidence the control is missing. It is also not a statement that the check is irrelevant to this codebase — the thing it grades applies; we just could not see it. Excluded from the score either way.

P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control

Not included — 63 check(s) not relevant to this codebase

These checks had nothing to measure here (no tests, no git history, the codebase is small, or the architecture style doesn't apply), so they're omitted above rather than scored low.

AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
AX5 Architecture & structure — not assessed — architecture style/structure is computed from a project graph (projects, types, module namespaces) that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX6 Interface segregation — not assessed — interface segregation is computed over a type surface that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
AX7 Slice cohesion — not applicable — not a vertical-slice architecture
AX8 Test isolation — no test/production split to check
AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
AXB1 Runtime evidence locked — no reproducible boot — This repository has nothing the runtime tiers could boot or serve — no markup, no UI framework or web-server dependency, no UI component source, no native UI project and no API definition — nothing here is a surface to boot — so runtime a11y/egress/header evidence has no subject here. Not applicable: this is neither a gap in the scan nor a finding about your code.
AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no data at rest for these controls to protect.
C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks authorization controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named column (email, first_name, date_of_birth, phone_number, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no sensitive data whose changes an audit trail would record. If it does (through a store configured outside this repository, for instance), the trail belongs to wherever that data is stored.
C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data whose lifetime a retention limit would bound.
C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in a persisted data model — no PII-named field (email, firstName, dateOfBirth, phoneNumber, …) or stored credential on a Room, JPA or MongoDB entity, an Exposed or Ktorm table, or in a SQL CREATE TABLE or ALTER TABLE — and no database or data-store client (Room, Exposed, SQLDelight, Realm, JPA, JDBC, MongoDB, Firebase, …) imported either, so this repository keeps no personal data for a data subject to erase, export or consent over.
D10 Test Quality — ~14581 lines of test source are present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
D12 Dependency Hygiene — Not scored — 33 Maven/Gradle manifest(s) were read, stating a version for 3 dependency(ies) and leaving 250 to a parent or an imported BOM, but no build resolved the dependency graph, so the outdated signal was not established. NOT a finding that these dependencies are current or healthy.
D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's 3 declared JVM dependency coordinate(s) were read from its 33 Maven/Gradle manifest(s), but Maven Central could not be asked for the licence of 2 of them (HTTP 429 Too Many Requests from https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/commons/commons-text/1.15.0/commons-text-1.15.0.pom), and a licence verdict over part of a dependency graph is not a licence verdict. Nothing is asserted about this repository's licensing in either direction.
D16 Bus Factor — single-maintainer repository — bus factor is not applicable
D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D22 Internal API Consistency — The exposed public-API surface could not be collected — no C#/VB projects loaded.
D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — No bounded-context organisation was detected either — neither a context-shaped layout, nor 2+ sibling source directories each declaring an aggregate root, nor 2+ projects each declaring an entity of their own. Aggregate roots were found in only one source directory (polyflow), which is a layered codebase, not two contexts. Declaring this codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the module-path or namespace prefixes that belong to it — e.g. `architecture:` → `contexts:` → `Billing: ["src/billing", "Acme.Billing"]`, `Catalog: ["src/catalog", "Acme.Catalog"]`.
D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
D27 Navigability — D27 counts a call into the standard library or a dependency as unresolved for this repository's language (.kt), so too few call sites counted as resolved to assess navigability. Not scored: this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository.
D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.
D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — 5 file(s) were not parsed by semgrep — the PII/GDPR ruleset never ran over them
D34 Knowledge Freshness — knowledge concentrated in recent work — freshness signal contradicted by repo activity
D39 IL Efficiency — D39 measures the IL emitted by a .NET build; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
D40 Network Egress Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.
D41 Kernel & Syscall Confinement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.
D42 Runtime Threat Enforcement — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.
D43 Malicious Dependencies — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.kt) but no test cases reached the test census for this repository — no test root we could resolve declared them, or the files we read declare no cases in a test framework we recognise — so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
DM10 One transaction, one aggregate — no repository writes detected — no operation to judge against the one-aggregate rule
DM12 Ambient inputs in the domain — no domain-layer types detected — ambient-input check not applicable
DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
DM4 Rich vs anemic model — no data-bearing entities detected — rich-vs-anemic model not assessable
DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary — no domain-layer types detected — domain↔infrastructure boundary check not applicable
DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
DM9 Scattered domain decisions — not measured — scattered-decision detection needs expression-level symbol resolution: a comparison operand bound to the member it judges (arm one) and a construction bound to the type it produces (arm two). A Roslyn compilation carries both; arm two alone also runs on any frontend that declares whether a construction is produced or passed, and this target loaded neither
ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this lens looks for (20 event handler(s))
ED5 Idempotency — Not assessed, and this one is on us: 20 command handler(s) or message consumer(s) were found here, but this check does not yet recognise persistence writes in this repository's language. Idempotency was neither confirmed nor ruled out — this is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files were read — this check reads C#, F#, JavaScript/TypeScript, Dart, Ruby and Scala, and none was read for this repository's product. That is a limit of the analyzer, not a finding about your code.
IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
P2 Observability — This repository's JVM source (23 module(s), 336 file(s) read) declares no entry point and bootstraps no server, and nothing here deploys a service — it is a library, run inside whatever hosts it, so production observability (structured logging, tracing/metrics, health checks) is N/A. If it grows a binary or a service, the dimension reactivates.
P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — no HTTP server, API framework or worker entry point was found in the JVM source, so there is no service whose uptime a failing dependency could take down
P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) and commit it — a hosted scan measures a clone of the repository, so a report that exists only in a working tree, a CI runner's or your own, never reaches it; the artefact is commonly gitignored, so `git add -f` that one file (or un-ignore its path) and commit it alongside the code it measures, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
PF1 Benchmark discipline — Not applicable: no benchmark suite was found. This check searched for `@Benchmark` in a Java, Kotlin or Scala file importing JMH or kotlinx-benchmark, Jetpack Benchmark's `measureRepeated` in a file importing androidx.benchmark, or JMH/kotlinx-benchmark/androidx.benchmark in a pom.xml, Gradle or sbt build, and for a `*benchmark*` script that this repository's CI runs. Benchmarks are credited as a bonus, so their absence is neither scored nor deducted.
PF2 Allocation hygiene — Not applicable: allocation awareness is rated where code engineers for it — at least 400 production lines that ship benchmarks or already use allocation-aware idioms (8 or more). This repository's Kotlin code has 22,235 production line(s), 0 such use(s) and no benchmarks, so there is no allocation work to rate. The card is reward-only: its absence costs nothing.
PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Not applicable: this repository declares no async functions, so there is no asynchronous code for a blocking call to stall.
S1 Web-Security Posture — Not assessed: these web-security controls are read from a source model (declarative annotations, request middleware, entity/column names, guard methods) that was not loaded for this repository — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of an idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repository lacks web-security controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
X2 Cancellation propagation — no C# was loaded; this repository's Kotlin was read, and no request in it can be cancelled by a caller (Ktor, OkHttp's newCall or a URL stream, from a suspend function) — a Kotlin request outside a suspend function has no caller's cancellation to honour
X24 Document value interpolated into markup unescaped — not analysed — these correctness checks read a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
X32 Type resolved by simple name across every loaded assembly — This check is about how a .NET program searches the assemblies loaded into its process for a type, and this repository contains no .NET source, so there is nothing here for it to assess. Not a gap in the analyzer and not a finding about your code.
X6 Hand-rolled structured-format parsing — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X7 Silent fallback defaults — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
X9 Subsumed condition operand — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

The findings behind the scores, grouped by severity, then by dimension and kind. The high-severity issues are enumerated in full below; items per group are capped at 25 with any overflow stated explicitly per group, never silently truncated. The complete machine-readable list of every finding (all severities) is the companion findings.md in this report's bundle.

Critical — 30 finding(s)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED

AX4 · Dependency direction · Dependency-rule violation · ×2

Dependency-rule violation: polyflow-datapool-core (Domain) → polyflow-datapool-api (Web) — `polyflow-datapool-core` is a Domain project but references `polyflow-datapool-api`, a Web project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.
Dependency-rule violation: polyflow-taskpool-core (Domain) → polyflow-taskpool-api (Web) — `polyflow-taskpool-core` is a Domain project but references `polyflow-taskpool-api`, a Web project. The clean-architecture rule is that dependencies point INWARD — the domain/application core must not depend on outer layers (infrastructure/web). Invert it: define the abstraction in the inner layer and implement it in the outer one.

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED

REDACTED
REDACTED

D11 · Test Reliability · Test declared unreliable · ×1

Test declared unreliable: integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/itest/txjob/TaskTxJobSenderITest.kt integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/itest/txjob/TaskTxJobSenderITest.kt:45 — This test is disabled or skipped with a reason naming unreliability — the repository's own words: "This test sometimes fails because it can't create a new TX (Entity Manager is closed).". A test that is skipped for flakiness is neither passing nor protecting the code it covers; either stabilise it or delete it, but do not leave it disabled indefinitely. (Found by reading the repository's own test source — the suite itself was not re-run, since the reliability runner does not support this ecosystem.)

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

Serious — 82 finding(s)

D17 · Explicit Debt · FixmeComment · ×9

FixmeComment core/datapool/datapool-core/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/datapool/core/business/upcaster/DataEntryCreatedEventUpcasterTest.kt:44 — // FIXME: how should we test it? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment integration/common/datapool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/datapool/sender/AbstractDataEntryCommandSender.kt:14 — // FIXME: reason about the API and refactor it... — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/SimpleEngineTaskCommandIntentDetector.kt:60 — // FIXME: think how attribute change on complete can be carried to the core. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/ProjectingCommandAccumulator.kt:131 — // FIXME: is there a way in Kotlin to avoid code duplication and make this check not type specific (but e.g. based on common interfaces)? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:491 — // FIXME — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:275 — // FIXME: replace by mongo paging — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesRepositoryExtensionImpl.kt:66 — // FIXME -> implement like — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesRepositoryExtensionImpl.kt:67 — // FIXME -> implement BETWEEN — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
FixmeComment view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskDocument.kt:78 — // FIXME: maybe remove? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D17 · Explicit Debt · TodoComment · ×9

TodoComment core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/task/TaskAggregateEngineTaskCommandFilter.kt:33 — // TODO: This will log an exception if the task aggregate is not present. Currently no idea how to determine this without creating the aggregate or logging an exception. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/upcast/AnnotationBasedSingleEventUpcaster.kt:19 — // TODO: maybe check revision already here? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/upcast/AnnotationBasedSingleEventUpcaster.kt:47 — // TODO: this seems expensive, maybe a check for the first byte is faster? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/upcast/TaskEventSourceReferenceUpcasterTest.kt:25 — // TODO: Move out test setup into separate project. — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/variable/ProcessVariableProcessor.kt:31 — // TODO: implement a variable value transformer. See #310
TodoComment integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/projectProperties.kt:83 — // TODO: Shouldn't we check the name here also? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment integration/common/variable-serializer/src/main/kotlin/VariableSerializer.kt:112 — // TODO: ask Jackson for the supported list of types — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment view/mongo/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/service/PolyflowMongoServiceTestBase.kt:160 — // TODO: How to get updates when a task _was_ but is no longer relevant for a query? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.
TodoComment view/mongo/src/test/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/service/PolyflowMongoServiceTestBase.kt:190 — // TODO: How to get updates when a task _was_ but is no longer relevant for a query? — source code is not a task system: move the work to your tracker and leave a reference instead (e.g. `// REF: #123`), so the task is planned where tasks live and the ticket links back to the code.

D4 · Code Duplication · Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) · ×4

Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:13 — core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:13-31 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:39-57 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:64-82 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:90-109 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:112 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:112-132 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskDocument.kt:68-93 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskDocument.kt:98-117 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesDocument.kt:40-58 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:307 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:307-317 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:362-372 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:379-389 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:396-406 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.
Members sharing a duplicated core (4 members, 50+ identical tokens) view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:281 — view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:281-288 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:321-328 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:335-342 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:349-356 — These 4 members share a duplicated core: a run of at least 50 identical tokens appears in every one of them. That run is NOT broken out as duplicated-block rows below — it is what admitted this row, and the blocks below cover only the part of it that clears the block floor, so they understate the correspondence. Read the members as one construct written 4 times. The repair is at the members' grain — factor the shared implementation out once and have all of them call it with their differences as parameters or as an injected step, or, where the difference is systematic, generate them from one template. Extracting the individual blocks below is not the same fix: it leaves every body in place and the next edit still has to be made 4 times.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) · ×4

Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:91 — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:91-101 | view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:127-137 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:91` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:19 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:19-29 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:63-73 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:19` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/process/ProcessDefinitionMongoService.kt:40 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/process/ProcessDefinitionMongoService.kt:40-50 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleProcessDefinitionService.kt:42-52 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice.
Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/query/task/TaskAttributeValuesQuery.kt:20 — view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/query/task/TaskAttributeValuesQuery.kt:20-30 | view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/query/task/TasksForUserQuery.kt:27-37 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `element` to `Task): Boolean = user == null || if (assignedToMeOnly` in one and `Task): Boolean = if (assignedToMeOnly` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D3 · God Classes · TooManyMethods · ×3

TooManyMethods: MongoViewService view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:84 — TooManyMethods — 36 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 6 over it, 1.20× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: BuiltInPublishDelegateParseListener integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/BuiltInPublishDelegateParseListener.kt:19 — TooManyMethods — 34 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 4 over it, 1.13× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.
TooManyMethods: SimpleTaskPoolService view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:33 — TooManyMethods — 33 methods. The bar is 30 methods; this is 3 over it, 1.10× the bar. To reduce it, group the members that share the same data into a smaller type of their own and delegate to it, so no single type carries every responsibility.

D5 · Coupling · Off the main sequence · ×3

Off the main sequence: polyflow-spring-utils — polyflow-spring-utils: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: polyflow-variable-serializer — polyflow-variable-serializer: abstractness 0.00, instability 0.00, distance 1.00 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 3 project(s), so it's rigid to change.
Off the main sequence: polyflow-datapool-api — polyflow-datapool-api: abstractness 0.20, instability 0.00, distance 0.80 — zone of pain — concrete and depended on by 6 project(s), so it's rigid to change.

X3 · Exception handling · Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) · ×3

Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TasksWithDataEntriesComparator.kt:26 — `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:26 — `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.
Swallowed exception (caught, then discarded) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:28 — `catch (e: Exception)` takes every exception and records none of it — the body neither logs it, rethrows it, nor even names it, so the failure is discarded as completely as by an empty catch and only the substituted value survives. Log it through whatever this codebase already uses to report problems, narrow the catch to the exception this call can actually raise, or say in a comment on the catch why the failure genuinely cannot matter.

AX2 · Stateful singletons · Stateful singleton · ×2

Stateful singleton: SimpleProcessDefinitionService view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleProcessDefinitionService.kt:27 — `SimpleProcessDefinitionService` is a singleton (@Component: the container shares one instance across every request thread) but mutates instance state outside any lock (processDefinitions; e.g. `processDefinitions` in `on` at line 37).
Stateful singleton: ProcessDefinitionService integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/definition/ProcessDefinitionService.kt:19 — `ProcessDefinitionService` is a singleton (@Component: the container shares one instance across every request thread) but mutates instance state outside any lock (processDefinitions; e.g. `processDefinitions` in `getProcessDefinitions` at line 33).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23) · ×2

SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt:64 — SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt holds 2 of the 4 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 16 of the 22 points over it (73%), 4× the next-largest file (view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/filter/Filter.kt at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cyclomatic 23) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt:237 — SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification has cyclomatic complexity 23 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cyclomatic complexity CONCENTRATES: view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt holds 2 of the 4 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 16 of the 22 points over it (73%), 4× the next-largest file (view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/filter/Filter.kt at 4). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cognitive 17) · ×2

SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cognitive 17) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt:64 — SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (11 pts), if/else 6 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt holds 2 of the 4 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 4 of the 6 points over it (67%), 4× the next-largest file (integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt at 1). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.
SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification (cognitive 17) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt:237 — SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification has cognitive complexity 17 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: match/switch 6 (11 pts), if/else 6 (nesting depth added 5). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident. This shape REPEATS in the file: one other method here (SpecificationExtKt.toTaskSpecification) has the same decision points, in the same order, at the same nesting depths — so this is one pattern written twice rather than two separate problems. Splitting this body alone leaves the other exactly as it is. Where these are variations on one operation, the change that clears both is the shared one: lift the common shape into a single routine the variants call, parameterised by whatever genuinely differs between them, and keep in each method only the part that is not shared. This file is where this pass's cognitive complexity CONCENTRATES: view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/SpecificationExt.kt holds 2 of the 4 methods over the threshold — including the worst — and 4 of the 6 points over it (67%), 4× the next-largest file (integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt at 1). No single row can show this, because each is measured only against the threshold: reducing this one file moves this dimension further than any other file in the repository.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) · ×2

Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:17 — view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:17-24 | view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:15-22 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:17` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.
Duplicated block (8 lines × 2) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:22 — view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:22-29 | view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TasksWithDataEntriesComparator.kt:22-29 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:22` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4) · Low cohesion · ×2

Low cohesion: ProcessInstanceAggregate (LCOM4 6) core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt:21 — ProcessInstanceAggregate's methods fall into 6 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 6 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.
Low cohesion: TaskEventCollectorService (LCOM4 4) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt:21 — TaskEventCollectorService's methods fall into 4 groups that share no field and call none of each other, against a bar of more than 3 for this run (LCOM4, configurable — your repository's bar is the one quoted here). Each group is a set of methods reachable from one another through shared fields or direct calls, so 4 groups means the type has that many internally-connected clusters with nothing tying them together. Types whose shape makes a high count expected — and which would otherwise dominate this list — are excluded before this row is raised, so this is a genuine split candidate rather than a metric reading. It is still a shape, not a defect: confirm the groups match responsibilities you can name before splitting.

DM11 · Constructible invalid state · Constructible in an invalid state · ×2

Constructible in an invalid state: DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity.kt:18 — `DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity`'s public constructor takes `entryType`, `entryId`, `path`, `value` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `DataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.
Constructible in an invalid state: TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/task/TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity.kt:16 — `TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity`'s public constructor takes `taskId`, `path`, `value` as raw primitives, and neither of the two things that would make that safe was found. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: for VALIDATION, the constructor body was scanned for `throw`, `Guard.`, `Ensure.`, `ArgumentNullException`, `ArgumentException`, `CheckRule` or `Requires.` — a guard reached through a helper method those tokens do not name is not seen; for a FACTORY, only this type's OWN static members were read, and only names beginning `Create`, `Of`, `From`, `New` or `Build` — one inherited from a base type, one on a companion builder, or one called `Parse`, `Make` or `Rehydrate` is not seen. If either exists, this row is wrong. If neither does, a caller can build a `TaskAndDataEntryPayloadAttributeEntity` that breaks the rules it exists to enforce, and every rule downstream then has to cope with a state the model said was impossible. Guard in the constructor, take value objects that validate themselves, or make the constructor private behind a `Create` that can refuse.

DM5 · Encapsulated state · Mutable entity · ×2

Mutable entity: ProcessDefinitionAggregate core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessDefinitionAggregate.kt:23 — `ProcessDefinitionAggregate` exposes publicly writable state (processDefinitionId).
Mutable entity: ProcessInstanceAggregate core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt:21 — `ProcessInstanceAggregate` exposes publicly writable state (processInstanceId).

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · FilterKt.compareOperator (cyclomatic 19) · ×1

FilterKt.compareOperator (cyclomatic 19) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/filter/Filter.kt:34 — FilterKt.compareOperator has cyclomatic complexity 19 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity · TaskEventCollectorService.update (cyclomatic 17) · ×1

TaskEventCollectorService.update (cyclomatic 17) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt:155 — TaskEventCollectorService.update has cyclomatic complexity 17 (threshold 15). To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Where every arm is uniform — the same kind of value, with no behaviour of its own — a table keyed by the case is the shorter form; wherever the arms carry different data or different behaviour, keep them as cases, because collapsing those trades an explicit, reviewable set of cases for nothing.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · VariableSerializerKt.toJsonPathWithValue (cognitive 16) · ×1

VariableSerializerKt.toJsonPathWithValue (cognitive 16) integration/common/variable-serializer/src/main/kotlin/VariableSerializer.kt:58 — VariableSerializerKt.toJsonPathWithValue has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: if/else 9 (11 pts), boolean chains 5 (nesting depth added 2). To reduce it, split the body: most of this score is breadth rather than depth — checks laid out side by side rather than stacked — so group the statements between the checks into named steps and move each step into its own function. Some of it IS depth: where a check sits inside another whose only job is to reach it, merge the two into one condition, and where an else follows a branch that already returns, drop the trailing else and let the rest of the body continue at one level.

D2 · Cognitive Complexity · TaskEventCollectorService.update (cognitive 16) · ×1

TaskEventCollectorService.update (cognitive 16) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt:155 — TaskEventCollectorService.update has cognitive complexity 16 (threshold 15). Drivers by points: boolean chains 8, match/switch 3 (5 pts), if/else 3 (nesting depth added 2). The drivers above price the dispatch low by construction — a dispatch is charged once however many cases it lists, while each branch inside an arm is charged in full — so most of this count is what the case bodies hold, and the arms are where it can be reduced. To reduce it, keep the dispatch but shrink the arms: move each non-trivial case body into its own named function (or onto the value being matched) so the dispatch reads one line per case, and group related cases into a sub-dispatch. Keep every case explicit, and make the behaviour for cases you do not list a deliberate choice rather than an accident.

D20 · ADR Quality · Context is only one sentence and lacks any problem statement (e.g. why an ADR convention matters) · ×1

Context is only one sentence and lacks any problem statement (e.g. why an ADR convention matters) specs/adr/000-adr-conventions.md — Add a brief Context section stating the problem (e.g. 'Inconsistent ADR formatting across specs/adr causes confusion for readers') so the decision's motivation is clear

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (27 lines × 2) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/assigner/ProcessVariableChangeAssigningService.kt:30 — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/assigner/ProcessVariableChangeAssigningService.kt:30-56 | integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/assigner/ProcessVariableChangeAssigningService.kt:63-89 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (21 lines × 2) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricProcessInstanceEventExtensions.kt:17 — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricProcessInstanceEventExtensions.kt:17-37 | integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricVariableInstanceExtensions.kt:15-35 — before extracting anything, compare `integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricProcessInstanceEventExtensions.kt` and `integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricVariableInstanceExtensions.kt` as WHOLE FILES: 85% of the shorter file's lines also appear in the other, so this reads as one file having been copied from the other rather than as a helper waiting to be extracted. The 1 duplicated block(s) this scan matched between them are fragments of that copy, not the extent of it — treat the file pair as the unit. If that is what happened, the fix is to keep one copy and have the other call it (or delete it), which resolves this row and its siblings together — extracting one helper per block leaves the fork in place. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/HistoricProcessInstanceEventExtensions.kt:17` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–20 lines × 2) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskServiceCollectorService.kt:38 — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskServiceCollectorService.kt:38-57 | integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskVariableLoader.kt:82-95 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from both call sites, so a change lands once.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (18–20 lines × 2) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:199 — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:199-216 | view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:226-245 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewTaskService.kt:199` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (16–17 lines × 3) core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:14 — core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:14-30 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:65-81 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:91-106 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (14–15 lines × 3) view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:108 — view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:108-121 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:131-144 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:154-168 — all 3 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:108` it begins part-way through the construct above it, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) integration/common/datapool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/datapool/sender/gateway/AxonCommandListGateway.kt:24 — integration/common/datapool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/datapool/sender/gateway/AxonCommandListGateway.kt:24-38 | integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/gateway/AxonCommandListGateway.kt:23-37 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `integration/common/datapool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/datapool/sender/gateway/AxonCommandListGateway.kt:24` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/DataEntryRepository.kt:109 — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/DataEntryRepository.kt:109-122 | view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/task/TaskRepository.kt:324-337 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/DataEntryRepository.kt:109` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13–14 lines × 2) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:114 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:114-126 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesDocument.kt:40-53 — the copies span different directories, so extracting a shared function means choosing where it lives: put it somewhere both call sites can already reach — a location they all depend on today, or a new shared one if there is none — and call it from each site; until then, every change has to be made twice. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesDocument.kt:40` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (13 lines × 2) view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/Converters.kt:20 — view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/Converters.kt:20-32 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/Converters.kt:54-66 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/Converters.kt:20` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–13 lines × 2) view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleDataEntryService.kt:98 — view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleDataEntryService.kt:98-108 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleDataEntryService.kt:154-166 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleDataEntryService.kt:98` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. The matched lines also transfer control out of the body holding them, which cannot survive a move into a called unit unchanged: have the extracted unit return that decision and let each site act on it.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (12 lines × 4) core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:14 — core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:14-25 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:41-52 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:65-76 | core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/mapper/task/TaskEventMappers.kt:91-102 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (11–12 lines × 4) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:118 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:118-129 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskDocument.kt:81-92 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskDocument.kt:104-114 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskWithDataEntriesDocument.kt:45-55 — there are 4 copies across 3 file(s) — more copies than files, so at least one file holds the block twice. Extract it once into a single shared function every call site can reach and call it from all 4 sites; resolving a subset leaves the remainder to drift apart. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately. ★ These copies have DRIFTED, and that is worth reading before extracting anything: just before the matched lines, `view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/task/TaskDocument.kt:102` calls `fromMap` and `view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:116` does not — after which the two agree again for 3 more lines. One of those two behaviours is the intended one and the other is what a copy-paste left behind, so decide which BEFORE unifying them: extracting the shared part will silently settle it, and if the copy that skips the call is the wrong one, that bug is already live.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewDataEntryService.kt:113 — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewDataEntryService.kt:113-122 | view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewDataEntryService.kt:141-150 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/JpaPolyflowViewDataEntryService.kt:113` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `event` to `DataEntryCreatedEvent` in one and `DataEntryUpdatedEvent` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (9 lines × 2) core/datapool/datapool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/api/business/Mappers.kt:7 — core/datapool/datapool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/api/business/Mappers.kt:7-15 | core/datapool/datapool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/api/business/Mappers.kt:25-33 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (8–9 lines × 2) integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/instance/ProcessInstanceEventCollectorService.kt:89 — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/instance/ProcessInstanceEventCollectorService.kt:89-96 | integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/instance/ProcessInstanceEventCollectorService.kt:104-112 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/process/instance/ProcessInstanceEventCollectorService.kt:89` it does not close everything it opens, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that. Note that the copies do not run to the end of the range shown: their LAST lines are different code, not the same code under different names — the matched region ends inside that line. Extract the lines above it, and read the last line of each site separately.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (7 lines × 2) integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/ProjectingCommandAccumulator.kt:68 — integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/ProjectingCommandAccumulator.kt:68-74 | integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/ProjectingCommandAccumulator.kt:79-85 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/accumulator/ProjectingCommandAccumulator.kt:68` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 3) view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:23 — view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:23-28 | view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TaskComparator.kt:21-26 | view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/TasksWithDataEntriesComparator.kt:21-26 — the copies sit in sibling files of one directory, so a shared home is within easy reach: extract the block into a single shared function the call sites can all reach — a file they already depend on, or a new one alongside them — and call it from all 3 call sites, so a change lands once. Read the line range as the matched WINDOW rather than a finished unit: at `view/view-api/src/main/kotlin/sort/DataEntryComparator.kt:23` it runs out through the closing brace of the declaration holding it — the window is that declaration's tail, not a fragment that begins part-way through something, so those exact lines cannot be lifted as they stand — widen the region to the smallest complete statement or declaration that contains it, and extract that.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) · ×1

Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/ConverterExt.kt:82 — view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/ConverterExt.kt:82-86 | view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/data/ConverterExt.kt:119-123 — both copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from each site — the copies drift apart the first time only one of them is edited.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (10 lines × 4) view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:308 — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:308-317 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:363-372 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:380-389 | view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/MongoViewService.kt:397-406 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Each matched range is the entire body of the declaration above it, so the region is already a complete unit: move that whole declaration to the shared location and have each site call it, rather than lifting the lines out of their bodies. Any `return` inside it is the body's own exit and keeps its meaning in the moved unit. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `event` to `TaskAssignedEngineEvent` in one and `TaskAttributeUpdatedEngineEvent` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

D4 · Code Duplication · Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) · ×1

Duplicated block (6 lines × 4) view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:282 — view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:282-287 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:322-327 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:336-341 | view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/SimpleTaskPoolService.kt:350-355 — all 4 copies are in the same file, so extract the block into one function there and call it from every one of those sites — resolving only two of them leaves the rest to drift apart the first time one is edited. Note first that the copies are not typed on the same thing: the declarations holding them bind `event` to `TaskAssignedEngineEvent` in one and `TaskAttributeUpdatedEngineEvent` in another, and the duplicated lines use it. The extracted unit therefore needs a parameter type that fits BOTH — their common supertype where they have one, or a new abstraction over them where they do not — and settling that is the step that comes BEFORE the extraction above. Where the two types are deliberately unrelated, the duplication is the price of that separation and the honest resolution is to record the decision rather than to extract.

M1 · Documentation (README) · README may be stale · ×1

README may be stale — 51 code files changed in the last 6 months but the README was not touched — it may no longer reflect the system.

P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Coverage collected but not gated · ×1

Coverage collected but not gated — CI collects a coverage report but no step enforces a minimum — coverage could halve and CI stays green. Add a step that fails the build when coverage drops below a floor (your coverage tool's minimum-threshold flag, or a coverage-gate action) so the number guards something. What was searched, so you can tell an absence from a miss: this repository's CI files AND its coverage configuration — the well-known coverage and test-runner config files, read at the repository root and inside workspace package directories two levels down, so a floor declared beside the tests rather than in the pipeline is credited — matched against the threshold settings this check knows by name. A floor set in your coverage service's web UI rather than in a committed file, or under a setting whose name is not one of those, is not seen here.

P12 · CI test-gate honesty · Test suite runs only after the merge · ×1

Test suite runs only after the merge — `REDACTED`, `REDACTED` run(s) the test suite, but no workflow that runs tests is triggered by a pull request (or a merge queue) — so the suite reports on code that is already on the default branch. A red build there blocks nothing and the only remedy is a revert. Add the pull-request trigger to the workflow that runs your suite so the gate applies before the merge, not after it.

Minor — 24 finding(s)

M4 · Documentation accuracy · README/code drift · ×12

README/code drift docs/migration-guide/index.md:57 — docs/migration-guide/index.md documents the environment variable `POLYFLOW_LIQUIBASE_ADOPTION_ENABLED`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:384 — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:385 — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:386 — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md:443 — docs/reference-guide/components/camunda-taskpool-collector.md links to `./core-taskpool`, but `docs/reference-guide/components/core-taskpool` does not exist. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md:127 — docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md names `.process.definition`, but no file or folder `.process.definition` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md:128 — docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md names `.process.instance`, but no file or folder `.process.instance` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md:129 — docs/reference-guide/components/common-taskpool-sender.md names `.process.variable`, but no file or folder `.process.variable` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/view-jpa.md:41 — docs/reference-guide/components/view-jpa.md names `application.yaml`, but no file or folder `application.yaml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/view-mongo.md:52 — docs/reference-guide/components/view-mongo.md names `application.yaml`, but no file or folder `application.yaml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/components/view-simple.md:44 — docs/reference-guide/components/view-simple.md names `application.yaml`, but no file or folder `application.yaml` exists. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.
README/code drift docs/reference-guide/configuration/persistence.md:172 — docs/reference-guide/configuration/persistence.md documents the environment variable `CAPITAL_CASE`, but no code, script or configuration file names it. Checked without a model against the repository: its files and folders, the scripts and dependencies of every package.json, the projects, namespaces, package references and target frameworks of the .NET build, the SDK and Node pins, and the identifiers of every file that is not a document; the documents' own text never counts. A footprint generated at build time, read only by a platform, or living outside this repository is not seen, and this row is then wrong.

X10 · Duplicated predicate · Duplicated predicate · ×4

Duplicated predicate integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/TaskEntityExtensions.kt:39 — `it.userId != null && it.type == IdentityLinkType.CANDIDATE` appears character-identically in 2 files — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/TaskEntityExtensions.kt, integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-collector/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/collector/task/TaskEventCollectorService.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt:93 — `it.username != null && !this.excludedUsernames.contains(it.username)` appears character-identically in 2 files — view/mongo/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/mongo/Converters.kt, view/simple/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/simple/service/Converters.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/process/variable/SimpleProcessVariableCommandSender.kt:25 — `senderProperties.enabled && senderProperties.processVariable.enabled` appears character-identically in 2 files — integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/process/variable/SimpleProcessVariableCommandSender.kt, integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/process/variable/TxAwareAccumulatingProcessVariableCommandSender.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.
Duplicated predicate integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-job-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/TxAwareAccumulatingCamundaJobEngineTaskCommandSender.kt:38 — `senderProperties.enabled && senderProperties.task.enabled` appears character-identically in 2 files — integration/camunda-bpm/taskpool-job-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/TxAwareAccumulatingCamundaJobEngineTaskCommandSender.kt, integration/common/taskpool-sender/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/sender/task/DirectTxAwareAccumulatingEngineTaskCommandSender.kt. It is one line, so the duplication detector's token window never sees it; the copies drift when only one is corrected. Give the condition a name and one home.

DM2 · Strongly-typed ids · Primitive id on a domain type · ×3

Primitive id on a domain type: TaskAssignmentUpdatedEngineEvent.taskDefinitionKey core/taskpool/taskpool-event/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/camunda/taskpool/api/task/TaskEvents.kt:160 — `TaskAssignmentUpdatedEngineEvent.taskDefinitionKey` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProcessDefinitionAggregate.processDefinitionId core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessDefinitionAggregate.kt:26 — `ProcessDefinitionAggregate.processDefinitionId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that.
Primitive id on a domain type: ProcessInstanceAggregate.processInstanceId core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt:24 — `ProcessInstanceAggregate.processInstanceId` is a raw `String` — give it a strongly-typed id: a dedicated single-field type wrapping the `String`, in whatever form your language spells that.

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy · REDACTED · ×1

REDACTED

P10 · Library API & versioning · Large public API surface · ×1

Large public API surface — 675/682 types (99%) declared in the published library are public. For a library, every public type is a stability contract — keep implementation types off the surface and expose only the intended API.

P6 · Release Hygiene · No changelog · ×1

No changelog — No CHANGELOG/HISTORY/RELEASES file — what shipped when isn't easy to reconstruct for support or audit. (Versioning/tagging makes releases traceable, but a changelog records the what.)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Every external tool invocation behind a deep-scan dimension — the tool, its captured version, the exact command, how many findings it yielded, and a link to the retained raw output. To reproduce any finding: check out the same commit and run the command shown (repo-relative — never an absolute scratch path). The complete raw scanner output is retained verbatim under artifacts/raw/ (indexed in artifacts/raw/index.json); per-invocation exit codes and wall-clock durations are in sidecar.json — kept out of this table so the rendered report stays byte-identical across runs of the same commit.

Dimension	Tool	Version	Command	Findings	Raw output
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-ab2fd0c3df894f3090c70182641f0bcb/history.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json
D28 · Secrets (history)	gitleaks	—	gitleaks detect --no-git --no-banner --config /opt/gitleaks-rules/watchdog-gitleaks.toml --report-format json --report-path /tmp/watchdog-gitleaks-ab2fd0c3df894f3090c70182641f0bcb/tree.json --exit-code 0 --source .	0	artifacts/raw/gitleaks-tree.json
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)	semgrep	—	semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/watchdog-sast.yml --json --quiet --timeout 10 --timeout-threshold 3 --metrics off .	29	artifacts/raw/semgrep.json
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json
D31 · IaC & Container Security	trivy	—	trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Docker Compose, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation, ARM, Bicep, Ansible); nothing to scan.	0	—
D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR)	semgrep	—	semgrep: not applicable — No personal data was found crossing a boundary the PII/GDPR ruleset checks — nothing written to a log or console sink, placed in a URL or query string, or persisted to browser storage. That is a clean result for the LEAK surface only: this ruleset detects personal data escaping, it does not inventory the personal data a repository holds, so it is not evidence that this repository has no personal-data surface. The personal-data map (Appendix C) and the C1-C5 compliance cards are what speak to that. semgrep could not parse 5 file(s) — `core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessDefinitionRegisterCommandHandler.kt`, `core/taskpool/taskpool-core/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/taskpool/core/process/ProcessInstanceAggregate.kt`, `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/PolyflowJpaViewConfiguration.kt`, `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/process/ProcessDefinitionEntity.kt`, `view/jpa/src/main/kotlin/io/holunda/polyflow/view/jpa/task/TaskEntity.kt` — so the PII/GDPR sweep did not cover the unparsed regions of them; rows reported elsewhere in those files are real.	0	—
D40 · Network Egress Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; network egress policy is a cluster-native control that may live at the platform/firewall layer, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D41 · Kernel & Syscall Confinement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; seccomp/AppArmor/SELinux confinement is a workload-level control, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D42 · Runtime Threat Enforcement	runtime-hardening	—	runtime-hardening: not applicable — No Kubernetes/orchestration workloads found in the repository manifests; runtime threat-detection and admission-control policy are cluster-level controls, so there is nothing to assess here.	0	—
D43 · Malicious Dependencies	osv-scanner	—	osv-scanner --format json --recursive --experimental-disable-plugins transitivedependency/requirements --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/csproj --experimental-disable-plugins dotnet/nugetcpm .	0	artifacts/raw/osv-scanner.json

Run 01a16562-31be-720c-b3ba-1f983650ad8e · every finding is also locatable in findings.md, and the complete scoring record (with exit codes + durations) in sidecar.json.

Findings by how serious they are

This survey was produced by

Executive summary

Top priorities

Diagnosis: what the measurements show together

Architecture — module dependency graph

Architecture: which parts of the code depend on which

At a glance — Code Health · 82% · Strong ·

At a glance — Architecture · 74% · Strong ·

At a glance — Maturity · 51% · Adequate · gated by M4 ·

At a glance — Readiness · 68% · Adequate ·

At a glance — Security · 55% · Adequate · gated by D29, D36 ·

At a glance — Domain Modelling · 52% · Adequate · gated by DM2, DM5 ·

At a glance — Event Sourcing · 100% · Exemplary ·

Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping

Roadmap

File quality

How the grades work

Methodology & how to trust this report

Tools & methods

Run transparency — what happened this run

Limitations & what we did not check

Per-dimension blind spots

The LLM boundary

Dimensions

Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions

Reference — by lens

Appendix A — Findings (grouped)

Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail

Downloadable artifacts