Executive summary
Read through the Production lens — the standard calibration. *Green* means good enough to run in production. The score is absolute and comparable across repos.
hunterbeanland/AutoVer carries serious gaps (43%). Several issues below can materially affect correctness, security, or the cost of changing it — and propagate to everything that depends on it.
It is strongest in Security (100%) — its security and compliance posture is in good shape. Architecture (97%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (17%) — releases are harder to depend on — versioning, release notes and dependency hygiene are thin, so consumers can't easily tell what changed or trust an upgrade. Maturity (50%) is the next concern — onboarding is slow — key decisions and the architecture aren't written down, so contributors have to reverse-engineer the intent.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR (CI/CD gates); ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across… (Observability); 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage (Code Coverage).
For scale: — (~0 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly — (—). Approximate, ±~30%.
Encouragingly, the gaps are in documentation and release process — not in the code's correctness, structure or security, which are strong. They're low-risk to close, and doing so would lift the grade without re-engineering anything that already works.
Code Health
73%
Adequate · gated by D1, D2, D18
Architecture
97% ★
Exemplary
Maturity
50%
Adequate · gated by M2
Readiness
17% ⚠
Critical · gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3
Security
100% ★
Exemplary
How the score is built — each lens's share of the headline
Width is the lens's weight in the worst-heaviest fold (the weakest area pulls hardest); colour is that lens's own band. A lens fixes the score in proportion to its width.
Readiness 17% · 47% weightMaturity 50% · 26% weightCode Health 73% · 14% weightArchitecture 97% · 8% weightSecurity 100% · 4% weight
Raise Readiness 17 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 43 → ~64.
Code composition — where the lines go
Generated 100%
New since the last scan (15+)
- D3 · FileTooLong: Forms/Form1.vb AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb
- D3 · TooManyMethods: frmMain AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb
- D17 · XxxComment AutoVerEngine/General.vb
- P2 · No structured logging
- SC1 · NuGet dependencies are not locked
Top priorities
1
Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage.
2
Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution.
3
Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Highest-leverage move
Of everything flagged, the best return on effort is: Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. The rest can wait behind it.
At a glance — Code Health
The Good
The Ugly
At a glance — Architecture
The Good
At a glance — Maturity
The Good
The Bad
At a glance — Readiness
The Ugly
At a glance — Security
The Good
Roadmap
First, establish a continuous integration workflow to automatically build the code and run tests on every change. Next, implement structured logging across all services to improve observability and enable effective monitoring. Then, address the lack of automated tests by resolving the identified coverage gaps and ensuring tests are properly distributed. Finally, begin documenting significant architectural decisions and their rationale to improve long-term maintainability.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. | +20.1 pts | Low | Code Coverage |
| Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. | +20.1 pts | Low | Test Distribution |
| Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR. | +25.4 pts | Medium | CI/CD gates |
| Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects. | +25.4 pts | Medium | Observability |
| Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale. | +9.7 pts | Medium | Architecture documentation |
| Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs. | +8.4 pts | Medium | Documentation (README) |
| Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root. | +8.4 pts | Medium | Folder & project structure |
| Improve Documentation Quality — currently 5.0/10. | +6.3 pts | Medium | Documentation Quality |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb | 2.3 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb | 3.4 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb | 3.4 | Slop | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerEngine/Logger.vb | 4.3 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb | 4.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerUI/Forms/ViewFile.vb | 4.9 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerUI/Forms/AppSettings.vb | 6.1 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb | 7.0 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: frmMain.frmMain_Load (cyclomatic 19) |
| AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb | 7.1 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: Settings.CheckSettings (cyclomatic 36) |
| AutoVerEngine/Language.vb | 7.2 | Mixed | Cyclomatic Complexity: Language.SetLabelsRecursive (cyclomatic 34) |
| AutoVerEngine/FileUtils.vb | 7.2 | Mixed | Cognitive Complexity: FileFolderFilter.SetupFilters (cognitive 24) |
| AutoVerService/Service.vb | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerUI/Classes/ApplicationEvents.vb | 7.6 | Mixed | Explicit Debt: EmptyCatchBlock |
| AutoVerEngine/General.vb | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: XxxComment |
| AutoVerUI/Forms/About.vb | 8.2 | Near-clean | Explicit Debt: TodoComment |
| AutoVerEngine/FtpClient.vb | 8.5 | Near-clean | God Classes: ClassTooLong: FTPclient |
| AutoVerUI/Web References/beanlandnetau/Reference.vb | 8.5 | Near-clean | Cohesion (LCOM4): Low cohesion: BeanAppService (LCOM4 6) |
| AutoVerService/AutoVerService.vbproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Solution Shape: Shell project: AutoVerService |
| AutoVerEngine/AutoVerEngine.vbproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Solution Shape: Shell project: AutoVerEngine |
| AutoVerUI/AutoVerUI.vbproj | 9.5 | Near-clean | Solution Shape: Shell project: AutoVerUI |
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. 31 of 33 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 2 documentation/naming judgement(s) are LLM-assisted and labelled advisory. Overall confidence is 0.5 — the weighted average across measured dimensions; it falls as more of the score leans on LLM-assisted judgement and rises when it's fully tool-backed.
What we checked — 33 dimensions across the health lenses
D1D2D3D4D5D6D8D9D12D13D15D17D18D19D21D26D28D29D30D35AX5AX6GD1M1M2M3M4P1P2P3X1X3X4
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, 126 of 137 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.301 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D31 IaC & Container Security — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- D1 Cyclomatic Complexity: Cyclomatic complexity counts branches statically — it cannot tell an essential decision tree from accidental tangle, nor see complexity that lives in data or configuration (large switch-case token tables, DSL lexers/parsers, data-as-code rule tables) rather than control flow: a tokenizer's many single-character cases read as high complexity though each branch is trivial.
- D2 Cognitive Complexity: Cognitive-complexity heuristics approximate how hard code is to follow; genuine domain difficulty and well-named intent that eases reading are not captured.
- D3 God Classes: "God class" is sized by members and responsibilities visible in the type — a deliberately broad facade over a coherent subsystem can read the same as an accidental grab-bag. For front-end JS the file-length check is cohesion-aware (a single-responsibility module — one class/IIFE — earns a 3× threshold), but cohesion is approximated from top-level declarations, not true dependency structure.
- D4 Code Duplication: Duplication is token-similarity (jscpd) — it finds copy-paste, not semantic duplication expressed differently. Committed machine-written code (EF migration scaffolds, *.Designer.cs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only; the generated footprint is reported separately under Solution Shape.
- D5 Coupling: Coupling is measured between projects/assemblies — runtime coupling through DI, reflection, messaging or shared databases is invisible to a static reference graph.
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4): LCOM4 cohesion is syntactic — it infers connectivity from which methods touch which fields/methods by name, not from real runtime behaviour or intent.
- D8 Code Coverage: Coverage is measured by building and running the suite (`dotnet test --collect`) inside Watchdog's isolated image — the target repo is never modified, and nothing on your systems runs. So coverage exists only when the suite builds and runs within the inline time budget; one that needs external services, can't build, or exceeds the budget yields no coverage (D8 then degrades to not-measured, not a low score). Line coverage also says nothing about assertion quality.
- D9 Test Distribution: The test-pyramid shape is inferred from project/folder naming and references, with a single test host bucketed per-file by its path tier and content signals — a suite that names tiers unconventionally and gives no per-file signal can still be mis-bucketed.
- D12 Dependency Hygiene: Dependency health reads manifests and lockfiles — a vulnerability in a vendored/copied dependency, or risk from how a dependency is actually used, is outside this view.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- D15 Churn × Complexity Hotspots: Churn hotspots come from git history — a freshly imported or squashed repository has no churn signal, and recent rewrites can mask a historically risky file.
- D17 Explicit Debt: Acknowledged-debt signals (TODO/FIXME, suppressions, dead code) are textual — undocumented debt that nobody marked, and debt that lives in design rather than annotations, is invisible. Committed machine-written code (EF migrations, designer files, snapshots) is excluded — it is never the team's dead code to delete.
- D18 Solution Shape: Build integrity reflects whether the solution compiled in this environment — a build that needs a private feed, a specific SDK, or a generated file absent from the repo can read as broken when it is merely unreproducible here.
- D19 Documentation Quality: Documentation quality is judged by an LLM over a bounded sample of docs — it reads what is written, not whether the docs match the running system, and it is advisory, not a measurement.
- 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.
- 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").
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities: CVE matching depends on accurate package/version metadata and the advisory database — a vulnerability with no published advisory, or in code not declared as a dependency, is not seen.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- M4 Documentation accuracy: Onboarding quality is an LLM read of the docs/setup present — it cannot run the onboarding or measure how long a real new joiner takes; the verdict is sampled and advisory.
The LLM boundary
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
23 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15; the worst was BackupEngine.BackupFile at 63.
BackupEngine.BackupFile (cyclomatic 63)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:650
BackupEngine.RenameFile (cyclomatic 54)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:400
BackupEngine.DeleteFile (cyclomatic 42)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:903
ConfigEngine.LoadWatcherConfig (cyclomatic 37)AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:496
Settings.CheckSettings (cyclomatic 36)AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:147
What to do
- Resolve the 1 BackupEngine.BackupFile (cyclomatic 63) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with BackupEngine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 BackupEngine.RenameFile (cyclomatic 54) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with BackupEngine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 BackupEngine.DeleteFile (cyclomatic 42) finding(s) in Cyclomatic Complexity — start with BackupEngine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cyclomatic Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
44 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15; the worst was BackupEngine.BackupFile at 270.
BackupEngine.BackupFile (cognitive 270)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:650
BackupEngine.RenameFile (cognitive 194)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:400
BackupEngine.DeleteFile (cognitive 183)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:903
Language.SetLabelsRecursive (cognitive 94)AutoVerEngine/Language.vb:141
BackupEngine.EnsureBackupCopyFTP (cognitive 88)AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1285
What to do
- Resolve the 1 BackupEngine.BackupFile (cognitive 270) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with BackupEngine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 BackupEngine.RenameFile (cognitive 194) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with BackupEngine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 BackupEngine.DeleteFile (cognitive 183) finding(s) in Cognitive Complexity — start with BackupEngine.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Cognitive Complexity in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D3 · God Classes
7 god class(es) detected.
ClassTooLong: BackupEngine AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:0
FileTooLong: AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:0
TooManyMethods: frmMainAutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:0
What to do
- Resolve the 6 ClassTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with BackupEngine.vb, ConfigEngine.vb, ErrorReporter.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (6 warning-level).
- Resolve the 4 FileTooLong finding(s) in God Classes — start with BackupEngine.vb, ConfigEngine.vb, Form1.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (4 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TooManyMethods finding(s) in God Classes — start with Form1.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 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.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D4 · Code Duplication
13 duplicated block group(s) detected.
Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:316
Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:972
Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:422
Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:518
Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:459
Do you agree with this assessment?
D5 · Coupling
5 projects, 0 dependency cycle(s), 0 unstable depended-on project(s).
Off the main sequence: AutoVerEngine
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Off the main sequence finding(s) in Coupling. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Coupling in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
1 of 13 classes have LCOM4 above 3.
Low cohesion: BeanAppService (LCOM4 6)AutoVerUI/Web References/beanlandnetau/Reference.vb:27
Do you agree with this assessment?
D8 · Code Coverage
No automated tests — the solution has no test code.
No automated tests
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No automated tests finding(s) in Code Coverage. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 issue-level).
- Enforce Code Coverage in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Verified — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D9 · Test Distribution
No test projects found.
No tests found
What to do
- Resolve the 1 No tests found finding(s) in Test Distribution. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D12 · Dependency Hygiene
0 outdated, 0 vulnerable, 0 deprecated packages.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
D17 · Explicit Debt
24 deducted debt markers + 0 dead symbols across 9079 LoC (2.0/KLoC) → score 6.0.
EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:838
XxxCommentAutoVerEngine/General.vb:3
TodoCommentAutoVerUI/Forms/About.vb:21
What to do
- Resolve the 22 EmptyCatchBlock finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with ErrorReporter.vb (9), Logger.vb (3), BackupEngine.vb (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (22 issue-level).
- Resolve the 1 XxxComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with General.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Resolve the 1 TodoComment finding(s) in Explicit Debt — start with About.vb. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 warning-level).
- Enforce Explicit Debt in CI to reach Verified (currently Documented). — Hardens enforcement from Documented toward Prevented — provenance only; does not change the score.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D18 · Solution Shape
5 projects, 0 .cs files, 9079 hand-written lines of code (9079 production / 0 test), plus 3432 generated (EF migrations / designer / snapshots, excluded from quality), 3 inter-project edges (build failed).
Shell project: AutoVerService AutoVerService/AutoVerService.vbproj
Build did not complete in the analyzer
What to do
- Resolve the 5 Shell project finding(s) in Solution Shape — start with AutoVerEngine.vbproj, AutoVerService.vbproj, AutoVerUI.vbproj. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D19 · Documentation Quality
The single README gives a clear description and lists features but lacks any architecture or usage documentation. The feature list enumerates capabilities (folder trees, backup modes, initial sync, file masking, versioning rate, deletion options) without explaining how they work together or what the user needs to configure. There is no mention of prerequisites, installation steps, or a configuration guide for the core AutoVer engine and UI.
XML-doc coverage: AutoVerService AutoVerService/AutoVerService.vbproj
What to do
- Improve Documentation Quality — currently 5.0/10. — The single README gives a clear description and lists features but lacks any architecture or usage documentation. The feature list enumerates capabilities (folder trees, backup modes, initial sync, file masking, versioning rate, deletion options) without explaining how they work together or what the user needs to configure. There is no mention of prerequisites, installation steps, or a configuration guide for the core AutoVer engine and UI.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D26 · Project Cohesion
0 of 5 projects flagged as possibly oversized/incoherent.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
semgrep found no security issues.
Do you agree with this assessment?
D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable NuGet packages (direct or transitive).
Do you agree with this assessment?
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
git history depth insufficient
Do you agree with this assessment?
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AX5 · Architecture & structure
Do you agree with this assessment?
AX6 · Interface segregation
Do you agree with this assessment?
GD1 · Unfinished & placeholder code
Do you agree with this assessment?
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a build/run (quick start) section to the root README — the first thing a newcomer needs.
- Add a 'Testing' section to the root README — how to run the test suite.
- Add an 'Architecture' / 'How it works' section to the root README — the high-level shape.
- Add a README to the 5 of 5 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 2 pts.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — decisions aren't captured for future maintainers.
- No C4/PlantUML/Mermaid diagram or architecture.md — the high-level shape isn't documented.
What to do
- Start an ADR log (docs/adr/) recording significant decisions and their rationale.
- Add a C4 context/container diagram (Structurizr, PlantUML or Mermaid) or an architecture.md overview.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M3 · Folder & project structure
- Projects aren't grouped under a src/ folder — production and tooling code are mixed at the root.
- Test projects aren't grouped under a tests/ folder — the test surface isn't separable from production code at a glance.
What to do
- Group production code under src/ (or split deliberately, e.g. backend/ + frontend/) so production and tooling code aren't mixed at the root.
- Group test projects under tests/ (or test/, spec/) so the test surface is discoverable and CI can scope it.
Do you agree with this assessment?
M4 · Documentation accuracy
Do you agree with this assessment?
P1 · CI/CD gates
- No CI workflow found (.github/workflows, azure-pipelines.yml, .gitlab-ci.yml, …) — changes aren't gated by an automated build/test.
What to do
- Add a CI workflow that builds and runs the test suite on every push/PR.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P2 · Observability
- No ILogger/Serilog usage found — production issues will be hard to diagnose.
What to do
- Adopt ILogger (or Serilog) and log at meaningful points across the projects.
- Consider OpenTelemetry tracing/metrics and a health-check endpoint for operability.
Do you agree with this assessment?
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing (CodeQL / security analyzers / codehealth) detected.
What to do
- Add a SAST step (e.g. CodeQL) or a security analyzer package.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
Do you agree with this assessment?
X1 · Async correctness
Do you agree with this assessment?
X3 · Exception handling
Do you agree with this assessment?
X4 · Structured logging
Do you agree with this assessment?
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 73% | Adequate — gated by D1, D2, D18 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Architecture | 97% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Maturity | 50% | Adequate — gated by M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 17% | Critical — gated by D8, D9, P1, P2, P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
Not included — 58 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC2 Forms & labels — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC3 Page structure — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AC7 A11y enforcement — No web markup found — accessibility is not applicable to this repository.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — no source files detected — code composition not applicable
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — no csproj graph available
- AX4 Dependency direction — no csproj graph available
- 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
- C1 Data Protection — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C2 Access Controls — No access-control surface detected in the analyzed source — no web/app surface to authorize (no HTTP API or web-UI project) and no authorization code at all (no [Authorize]/policies, no imperative guard methods). Access control is therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI, which is authorized by its CALLER, not by itself. If this codebase grows request handlers, the dimension reactivates and a default-deny posture is expected then.
- C3 Audit Trail — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C4 Data Retention — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — No personal data detected in the analyzed source — no PII-typed entity/column names (Email, FirstName, DateOfBirth, …), no ASP.NET Identity / user-account model, and no stored user credentials. GDPR data-protection controls are therefore N/A here. If this is intentional, record the no-PII posture in an ADR; if the app does process personal data, name those fields conventionally so this dimension activates.
- D10 Test Quality — No tests in the analyzed solution to assess for quality.
- D11 Test Reliability — No tests discovered
- D14 License Compliance — license scan produced no result — the tool ran but its JSON output could not be parsed; the offline NuGet fallback resolved nothing
- D16 Bus Factor — early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Bounded contexts not declared
- D24 Comment Value — No inline comments to assess — comment value is not applicable here.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D27 Navigability — symbol resolution incomplete — navigability not assessed
- D31 IaC & Container Security — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness — early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for.
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan.
- D39 IL Efficiency — The target did not build, so no IL was available to measure.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs and no dependency cycles — architectural integrity not assessed
- DM1 Domain Modelling — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED1 Event-Driven — not run — 0/3 markers found
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES1 Event Sourcing — not run — 0/3 markers found
- IC1 Incompleteness & stubs — no C# methods found
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — no CI workflow found
- P4 Deployment & Rollback — not evidenced — no deploy/rollback/approval signal in the repo; absence of evidence is not evidence of a manual release
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P6 Release Hygiene — not evidenced — no changelog, version stamp or semver release tag in the repo
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not applicable — this isn't a service/API/worker
- P8 Schema migrations — no EF Core usage detected
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — run tests with `--collect:"XPlat Code Coverage"` (or in CI) to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance is assessed only for perf-relevant repos — a packaged library, one that ships benchmarks, or one already using allocation-aware APIs. This repo isn't one, so the Performance lens is not applicable and is excluded from the score.
- S1 Web-Security Posture — No web surface detected in the analyzed source — no HTTP API or web-UI project (no controllers/minimal-API endpoints, no Razor/Blazor views) and no web middleware (HTTPS redirection, HSTS, security headers, cookies). Transport security, security headers, secure cookies, CSRF/input-validation and middleware-order controls are therefore N/A here — this is a library/CLI/worker, not a web app. Crypto hygiene was still checked and found nothing to flag. If this codebase becomes web-facing, the dimension reactivates automatically.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — no data
- X2 Cancellation propagation — no async methods found
- X5 Nullable reference types — no NRT-eligible projects
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 23 finding(s)
D17 · Explicit Debt
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:838
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:860
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:331
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/Logger.vb:144
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/Logger.vb:189
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerEngine/Logger.vb:257
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerService/Service.vb:170
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Classes/ApplicationEvents.vb:28
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/AppSettings.vb:255
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:245
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:251
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:312
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:320
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:328
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:336
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:344
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:352
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:462
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:433
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:438
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ViewFile.vb:32
- EmptyCatchBlock AutoVerUI/Forms/ViewFile.vb:45
D8 · Code Coverage
- No automated tests
Warning — 95 finding(s)
D3 · God Classes
- ClassTooLong: BackupEngine AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:0
- ClassTooLong: ConfigEngine AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:0
- ClassTooLong: FTPclient AutoVerEngine/FtpClient.vb:0
- ClassTooLong: ErrorReporter AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:0
- ClassTooLong: Settings AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:0
- ClassTooLong: VerExplorer AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:0
D3 · God Classes
- FileTooLong: AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:0
- FileTooLong: AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:0
- FileTooLong: Forms/Form1.vb AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:0
- FileTooLong: Forms/VerExplorer.vb AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:316
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:536
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:862
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:972
- Duplicated block (15 lines × 2) AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:309
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:422
- Duplicated block (14 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:535
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:518
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:673
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:459
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:477
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.BackupFile (cyclomatic 63) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:650
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.RenameFile (cyclomatic 54) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:400
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.DeleteFile (cyclomatic 42) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:903
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- ConfigEngine.LoadWatcherConfig (cyclomatic 37) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:496
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Settings.CheckSettings (cyclomatic 36) AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:147
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Language.SetLabelsRecursive (cyclomatic 34) AutoVerEngine/Language.vb:141
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.RestoreAllFTP (cyclomatic 30) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1974
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.EnsureBackupCopyFTP (cyclomatic 27) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1285
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.ZipFiles (cyclomatic 27) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1459
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.RestoreAllCopy (cyclomatic 25) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1880
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Settings.Settings_Load (cyclomatic 25) AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:17
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.DeleteOldVersions (cyclomatic 24) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1714
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.EnsureBackupCopy (cyclomatic 22) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1200
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.DeleteArchiveVersions (cyclomatic 21) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1374
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- Language.FindLabelsRecursive (cyclomatic 20) AutoVerEngine/Language.vb:68
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.FindOldVersions (cyclomatic 19) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1617
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- frmMain.frmMain_Load (cyclomatic 19) AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:22
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- VerExplorer.tsbDelete_Click (cyclomatic 19) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:978
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- BackupEngine.SetupWatcher (cyclomatic 18) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:87
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- frmMain.RefreshWatchersStatus (cyclomatic 18) AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:443
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- VerExplorer.tspCompare_Click (cyclomatic 17) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:832
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- ErrorReporter.Management (cyclomatic 16) AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:405
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
- VerExplorer.GetVersions (cyclomatic 16) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:733
D17 · Explicit Debt
- XxxComment AutoVerEngine/General.vb:3
D17 · Explicit Debt
- TodoComment AutoVerUI/Forms/About.vb:21
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.BackupFile (cognitive 270) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:650
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.RenameFile (cognitive 194) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:400
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.DeleteFile (cognitive 183) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:903
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Language.SetLabelsRecursive (cognitive 94) AutoVerEngine/Language.vb:141
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.EnsureBackupCopyFTP (cognitive 88) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1285
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.RestoreAllFTP (cognitive 85) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1974
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.LoadWatcherConfig (cognitive 67) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:496
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.RestoreAllCopy (cognitive 66) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1880
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- VerExplorer.tspCompare_Click (cognitive 65) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:832
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Settings.CheckSettings (cognitive 63) AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:147
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.DeleteArchiveVersions (cognitive 62) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1374
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.DeleteOldVersions (cognitive 62) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1714
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- VerExplorer.tsbDelete_Click (cognitive 62) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:978
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.EnsureBackupCopy (cognitive 57) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1200
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.ZipFiles (cognitive 49) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1459
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Settings.Settings_Load (cognitive 49) AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:17
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.FindOldVersions (cognitive 41) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1617
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ErrorReporter.Management (cognitive 38) AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:405
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.PauseWatcher (cognitive 36) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:190
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.DriveEventPolling (cognitive 35) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:799
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Language.FindLabelsRecursive (cognitive 33) AutoVerEngine/Language.vb:68
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- frmMain.RefreshWatchersStatus (cognitive 33) AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:443
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- VerExplorer.GetVersions (cognitive 32) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:733
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Settings.butOK_Click (cognitive 30) AutoVerUI/Forms/Settings.vb:232
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- frmMain.frmMain_Load (cognitive 29) AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:22
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ViewFile.btnOK_Click (cognitive 28) AutoVerUI/Forms/ViewFile.vb:54
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.UpdateWatchersList (cognitive 27) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:626
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.SetupWatcher (cognitive 25) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:87
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FileFolderFilter.SetupFilters (cognitive 24) AutoVerEngine/FileUtils.vb:287
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- VerExplorer.trv_SelectFolder (cognitive 23) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:626
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FileFolderFilter.CanCopy (cognitive 22) AutoVerEngine/FileUtils.vb:340
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- AppSettings.btnOK_Click (cognitive 22) AutoVerUI/Forms/AppSettings.vb:112
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.CheckConfigFolder (cognitive 20) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:342
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- frmMain.EnsureAll (cognitive 20) AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:800
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.EnsureBackupCurrent (cognitive 19) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1155
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.LoadAppConfig (cognitive 19) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:276
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- VerExplorer.tspRestore_Click (cognitive 19) AutoVerUI/Forms/VerExplorer.vb:909
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.StartWatching (cognitive 18) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:135
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- BackupEngine.tmrDelayWrite_Tick (cognitive 18) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:300
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- Logger.Write (cognitive 18) AutoVerEngine/Logger.vb:158
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ConfigEngine.ArchiveDelete_Tick (cognitive 17) AutoVerEngine/ConfigEngine.vb:901
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FileUtils.ReadINI (cognitive 16) AutoVerEngine/FileUtils.vb:194
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- FileUtils.WriteINI (cognitive 16) AutoVerEngine/FileUtils.vb:227
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
- ErrorReporter.AttachFiles (cognitive 16) AutoVerUI/Forms/ErrorReporter.vb:106
D3 · God Classes
- TooManyMethods: frmMain AutoVerUI/Forms/Form1.vb:0
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 2) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:1465
D4 · Code Duplication
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 3) AutoVerEngine/BackupEngine.vb:454
D5 · Coupling
- Off the main sequence: AutoVerEngine
D6 · Cohesion (LCOM4)
- Low cohesion: BeanAppService (LCOM4 6) AutoVerUI/Web References/beanlandnetau/Reference.vb:27
Recommendation — 10 finding(s)
D18 · Solution Shape
- Shell project: AutoVerService AutoVerService/AutoVerService.vbproj
- Shell project: AutoVerEngine AutoVerEngine/AutoVerEngine.vbproj
- Shell project: AutoVerUI AutoVerUI/AutoVerUI.vbproj
- Shell project: AutoVerUnitTests AutoVerUnitTests/AutoVerUnitTests.vbproj
- Shell project: InstallPackage InstallPackage/InstallPackage.vbproj
D11 · Test Reliability
- No tests discovered
D16 · Bus Factor
- early-stage repository — too few commits for a meaningful bus factor
D23 · Boundary Type-Coupling
- Bounded contexts not declared
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
- early-stage repository — too little history to judge knowledge freshness
D9 · Test Distribution
- No tests found
Info — 9 finding(s)
D19 · Documentation Quality
- XML-doc coverage: AutoVerService AutoVerService/AutoVerService.vbproj
- XML-doc coverage: AutoVerEngine AutoVerEngine/AutoVerEngine.vbproj
- XML-doc coverage: AutoVerUI AutoVerUI/AutoVerUI.vbproj
- XML-doc coverage: AutoVerUnitTests AutoVerUnitTests/AutoVerUnitTests.vbproj
- XML-doc coverage: InstallPackage InstallPackage/InstallPackage.vbproj
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
- git history depth insufficient
D18 · Solution Shape
- Build did not complete in the analyzer
D22 · Internal API Consistency
- No exposed public API
D35 · Change Coupling
- git history depth insufficient
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 0 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | dotnet | — | dotnet list AutoVer.sln package --vulnerable --include-transitive --format json | 0 | artifacts/raw/dotnet-vulnerable.json |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No Infrastructure-as-Code or container manifests found (Dockerfile, Terraform, Kubernetes/Helm, CloudFormation); nothing to scan. | 0 | — |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR ruleset is bundled (the public p/gdpr semgrep pack was retired) — data compliance is not assessed in this scan. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy: not applicable — No JS/npm manifest or lockfile found outside bin/obj (package.json, package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); no JS dependencies to scan. | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — No CI/build pipeline found (.github/workflows, .gitlab-ci.yml, azure-pipelines.yml, Jenkinsfile, .circleci); there is no build to attest provenance for. | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md, .github/SECURITY.md, docs/SECURITY.md, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner: not applicable — No JS/npm lockfile found outside bin/obj (package-lock.json, yarn.lock, pnpm-lock.yaml, bun.lockb); nothing for OSV to scan. | 0 | — |