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.
idugalic/micro-company is sound in substance but carries real gaps (54%). It is not in crisis, but the issues below raise the cost of changing it — friction its consumers ultimately inherit.
It is strongest in Architecture (100%) — the structure is clean and changes stay contained. Domain Modelling (100%) is solid too.
The area that most needs attention is Readiness (46%) — 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. Accessibility (48%) is the next concern — it raises ongoing delivery and operational cost.
Leadership focus, highest impact first: SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships (Security & performance tooling); `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing… (Deployment & Rollback); Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped… (Release Hygiene).
For scale: Small (~3,962 production lines); rebuilding it from scratch would take roughly ~0.1 person-years (~1 engineer). Approximate, ±~30%.
It builds on a genuinely strong Architecture foundation (100%); the priorities above are the highest-leverage way to bring the rest up to that level.
Raise Readiness 46 → 70 (the Healthy floor) ⇒ headline 54 → ~58.
New since the last scan (43+)
- D4 · Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) api-gateway/src/main/java/com/idugalic/apigateway/Application.java
- D4 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) documentation/src/main/java/com/idugalic/documentation/DocumentationApplication.java
- D4 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) command-side-blog-service/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/Application.java
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) command-side-blog/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/aggregate/BlogPostAggregate.java
- D4 · Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) command-side-blog-service/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/RestResponseEntityExceptionHandler.java
- D4 · Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) documentation/src/main/java/com/idugalic/documentation/DocumentationApplication.java
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 monolithic/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 monolithic/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 configserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 configserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 query-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 query-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 query-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- D31 · Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- R10 · Duplicated block (13 lines × 2 locations) monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-post/blog-post.component.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/shared/blog-posts.service.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (11 lines × 2 locations) monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/shared/alert/alert.service.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (10 lines × 2 locations) monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-post-list/blog-post-list.component.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-post-new/blog-post-new.component.ts
- R10 · Duplicated block (8 lines × 2 locations) monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/shared/blog-posts.service.ts
Rebuild cost & value ~ Modeled — €2,100–€10,000
| Cost to rebuild | €2,100–€10,000 |
| Domain complexity | High |
| Quality factor | 0.7× (at 54% quality) |
| Size & shape | Small · effort split not classified (source measured from disk; the effort-tier breakdown is a C#-only syntax walk) |
This codebase represents roughly ~0.1 person-years of build effort (about ~€6,300 to rebuild). Its weakest lens is Readiness at 46% — the part of that asset most exposed by the findings below.
Top priorities
Diagnosis — what's actually going on
Architecture — module dependency matrix
At a glance — Code Health
At a glance — Architecture
At a glance — Maturity
At a glance — Readiness
At a glance — Security
At a glance — Domain Modelling
At a glance — Event Sourcing
At a glance — Accessibility
Security & Compliance — OWASP Top-10 mapping
| OWASP category | Findings | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| A05:2021 — Security Misconfiguration | 47 | High / Critical |
| A03:2021 — Injection | 2 | High / Critical |
Roadmap
First, integrate a security static analysis tool like SAST into the CI pipeline to fail the build on regressions. Next, improve deployment reliability by adding health checks to services and ensuring image tags remain immutable for easy rollback. Then, maintain a clear changelog to track release history. Finally, ensure every form control and button has a programmatic label, and enforce accessibility standards by adding a11y rules and automated testing in CI.
| Do this | Helps | Effort | Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. | +4.7 pts | Low | Knowledge Freshness |
| Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing. | +6.6 pts | Medium | Security & performance tooling |
| Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding. | +6.4 pts | Medium | Deployment & Rollback |
| Keep a changelog (e.g. Keep-a-Changelog) recording what shipped in each release. | +6.4 pts | Medium | Release Hygiene |
| Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label. | +5.6 pts | Medium | Forms & labels |
| Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules), then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI. | +5.6 pts | Medium | A11y enforcement |
| Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh. | +5.6 pts | Medium | Page structure |
| Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies. | +5.4 pts | Medium | Dependency Hygiene |
File quality
| File | Score | Band | Worst signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 2.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 2.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 2.8 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 3.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 3.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 3.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| query-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 3.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 3.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 3.5 | Slop | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| configserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 4.1 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| monolithic/src/main/docker/Dockerfile | 4.1 | Mixed | IaC & Container Security: High IaC: DS-0002 |
| .github/workflows/maven.yml | 5.8 | Mixed | Static Analysis (SAST): High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag |
| documentation/src/main/java/com/idugalic/documentation/DocumentationApplication.java | 7.8 | Mixed | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) |
| api-gateway/src/main/java/com/idugalic/apigateway/Application.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) |
| command-side-blog-service/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/Application.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) |
| command-side-blog/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/aggregate/BlogPostAggregate.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) |
| command-side-blog-service/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/RestResponseEntityExceptionHandler.java | 8.5 | Near-clean | Code Duplication: Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) |
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. 39 of 40 evaluated dimensions are computed purely by tools and static analysis (confidence 1.0); 1 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 — 40 dimensions across the health lenses
- Can you open the finding? Real findings cite a repo-relative file and line you can open at the cited line — never an absolute scratch path. Here, 55 of 63 do; the remainder are repo-wide signals — a dimension-level measurement, not a single line.
- Is there a tool behind the number? Every score below names the method that produced it — Roslyn, git, a scanner, or (for a handful of documentation/naming dimensions) an LLM labelled sampled · advisory — not a narrative.
- Does re-running give the same result? Run it again on the same commit and the score — and this report, byte for byte — is identical. A report whose numbers move between runs is describing the run, not the code.
Tools & methods
| Method | Backs | Version | Evaluator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Roslyn static analysis | Complexity, cohesion, coupling, dead code, API surface, layering | 5.3.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| Native secret scanner | Hardcoded secrets / credentials | 1.0.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| jscpd | Code duplication | — | ✓ deterministic |
| Coverage (coverlet / dotnet-coverage) | Line & branch coverage | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| NuGet / dotnet | Outdated, vulnerable & deprecated dependencies | 10.0.302 | ✓ deterministic |
| git / LibGit2Sharp | Churn hotspots, knowledge concentration, history | 2.43.0 · 0.31.0 | ✓ deterministic |
| gitleaks · semgrep · trivy · checkov | Secrets in history, SAST, CVEs, IaC & container, PII / GDPR | 1.86.0 · 0.69.3 · 3.2.533 | ✓ deterministic |
| LLM (sampled · advisory) | Documentation quality, ADR conformance, naming — sampled over a bounded sample; advisory, never a deterministic measurement | Local LLM | ◐ LLM · sampled · advisory |
Run transparency — what happened this run
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM provider failed — The model provider returned an unusable result, so this LLM-assisted dimension fell back to a measurement gap (confidence 0) rather than a penalty. Re-run with a reachable provider to score it.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — scanner not present in this environment — The backing tool was not installed where this scan ran, so this dimension was not scored. Install the tool (or run in the hosted environment, where it is always present) for a graded result.
Limitations & what we did not check
Watchdog assesses the repository exactly as committed, and only the repository. By design it does not reach outside the source tree: the live cloud account, the running CI/CD pipeline, the host's branch-protection and approval rules, the production configuration, or a restore actually exercised against a backup are all out of scope. That boundary is a feature, not a gap — a repo-relative, deterministic scan re-runs identically on any commit and every finding opens at a real file and line, where a live audit can neither be reproduced nor traced. The visible consequence is that controls which leave no in-repo evidence are reported as "not evidenced" and excluded from the score rather than awarded a number a static scan cannot justify.
Per-dimension blind spots
- 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 (scaffolded migrations, designer/codegen output, protobuf/OpenAPI stubs, model snapshots) is EXCLUDED — its repetition is the tool's, not the team's — so the score reflects hand-written duplication only.
- D13 Secret Scanning: Secret detection is signature- and entropy-based on the current tree — a secret that does not match a known pattern, or one already rotated, will not be flagged (a clean scan is "nothing matched", not "no secrets exist").
- 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.
- D21 Naming Consistency: Naming quality is an LLM judgement over a bounded sample — it assesses clarity/consistency of the names it sees, not domain-correctness, and is advisory.
- D28 Secrets (history): Secret-history scanning sweeps the git log for known patterns — a secret that predates the available history, or never matched a signature, is not found (clean means "nothing matched in the history we can see").
- D29 Static Analysis (SAST): SAST findings are pattern-based (semgrep) — it finds classes of bug it has rules for; logic flaws, auth/authorization gaps and issues needing runtime context are out of reach (and clean means "no rule matched").
- D31 IaC & Container Security: IaC scanning checks Dockerfiles/Terraform/Kubernetes against best-practice rules — it cannot see the live cloud account, runtime configuration, or drift between the committed config and what is actually deployed.
- D33 JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities: JS/npm CVE matching reads package manifests and lockfiles — risk from how a dependency is used, and advisories not yet published, fall outside this scan.
- D34 Knowledge Freshness: Freshness is decayed commit RECENCY, not comprehension — code read often but rarely committed reads as orphaned, and stable code that genuinely needs no changes is penalised the same as forgotten code; bot/squash commits distort it like the bus factor.
- D35 Change Coupling: Change coupling is co-change in COMMITS — files split across separate commits, or coupled only through a shared config/build step, read as uncoupled, and a sweeping commit (rename/format) is excluded so it doesn't couple everything. It shows that files change together, not WHY: a high coupling can be a healthy cohesive pair as readily as a hidden leak.
- AC2 Forms & labels: Label association is read from static markup — a label wired up at runtime (JS-set aria-labelledby, framework-injected ids) reads as missing, a present label says nothing about whether its text is correct. A known UI-library field component (e.g. a JSX <TextField>) is now checked conservatively — flagged only when it carries NO label/aria-label/aria-labelledby/id/name — but wrapper/context-labelled libraries (Chakra/Radix FormControl+FormLabel) aren't statically visible (possible false positive) and non-JSX lowercased components are still skipped. A clean result is "no unlabelled native control found", not a labelling proof.
- AC3 Page structure: Page structure is read from the static markup tree — landmarks, headings and lang injected at runtime aren't seen, heading ORDER is checked structurally (not against the rendered visual hierarchy), and lang/title/main fire only on full documents, never partials, and the data-table check sees header-cell presence (a <th> exists), not whether each header correctly associates with its cells. Static readiness, not conformance.
- AC6 Visual & motion safety: Contrast and motion safety are PARTIAL by construction — literal colours (hex/rgb/hsl/named) in inline styles, in-repo <style> blocks, in-repo .css files, var() tokens, Tailwind neutral utilities and CSS-in-JS top-level declarations are read (same-rule/same-element colour+background pairs only); computed/runtime/theme colour, external-CDN stylesheets, CSS-in-JS dynamic (${…}) and nested-selector colours, cross-element pairs and image contrast stay out of reach, so a clean result is bounded by what the static CSS itself shows.
- AC7 A11y enforcement: Enforcement is scored from in-repo config/CI evidence only — an a11y gate enforced in external tooling with no in-repo trace can't be credited, and a configured linter is presence, not proof the rules actually run or block a merge.
- DM4 Rich vs anemic model: Behaviour is detected as state mutation inside a method body — a method that enforces an invariant by validating-and-throwing without mutating reads as a query, and mutation delegated through an interface the scan can't resolve isn't credited; entities with zero public properties still drop out of the population. It detects that state changes, not whether the rule is correct.
- DM6 Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary: Infrastructure reached through a hand-rolled wrapper, a domain-named facade, reflection, or a string-keyed service locator resolves to a non-infra type and isn't seen; the body scan is symbol resolution over syntax, not full dataflow. A clean result means "no resolved infra reference in a domain body", not a proof of purity.
- 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
Dimensions
D1 · Cyclomatic Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cyclomatic complexity threshold of 15.
D2 · Cognitive Complexity
0 method(s) exceeded the cognitive complexity threshold of 15.
D3 · God Classes
0 god class(es) detected.
D4 · Code Duplication
6 duplicated block group(s) detected.
D13 · Secret Scanning
Secret scan ran and found no leaked secrets.
D15 · Churn × Complexity Hotspots
No churn × complexity hotspots in the window.
D21 · Naming Consistency
0 naming inconsistencies across 0 sampled symbols.
D28 · Secrets (history)
gitleaks scanned the full history AND the current working tree and found no secrets.
D29 · Static Analysis (SAST)
2 finding(s): 0 critical, 2 high, 0 medium, 0 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 2 High finding(s) in Static Analysis (SAST) — start with maven.yml (2). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (2 issue-level).
D31 · IaC & Container Security
73 finding(s): 0 critical, 11 high, 31 medium, 31 low.
What to do
- Resolve the 31 Medium IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (31). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (31 warning-level).
- Resolve the 11 High IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (11). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (11 issue-level).
- Resolve the 5 Low IaC finding(s) in IaC & Container Security — start with Dockerfile (5). — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (5 recommendation-level).
D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities
No known-vulnerable JS/npm dependencies.
D34 · Knowledge Freshness
19 of 19 significant source file(s) are orphaned — their living knowledge has decayed to nothing, so no one currently understands them. The largest is command-side-project/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/project/aggregate/ProjectRelease.java.
What to do
- Resolve the 1 Further orphaned files (smaller) finding(s) in Knowledge Freshness. — One of this dimension's main actionable groups (1 recommendation-level).
D35 · Change Coupling
No strong hidden change-coupling between production files.
Frontend & cross-cutting dimensions
AC2 · Forms & labels
- This control has only a placeholder — a placeholder is not a label (it vanishes on input and many AT ignore it). Add a <label for>, a wrapping <label>, or aria-label. (×8) — blog-post-new.component.html:7, blog-post-new.component.html:10, blog-post-new.component.html:13, …
What to do
- Give every control a programmatic label (a <label for> / wrapping <label> / aria-label) and every button text — a placeholder is not a label.
AC3 · Page structure
- The page declares no language, so assistive tech can't pick the right pronunciation. Add lang (e.g. lang="en"). (×3) — index.html:2, index.html:2, index.html:2
- No <main> (or role="main") means no "skip to content" target and a weaker landmark map. Wrap the primary content in <main>. (×3) — index.html:2, index.html:2, index.html:2
What to do
- Declare <html lang>, a document <title> and a <main> landmark, keep headings in order, leave zoom enabled, title iframes and drop meta-refresh.
AC6 · Visual & motion safety
AC7 · A11y enforcement
- No accessibility enforcement found — no a11y linter (@angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules)) and no axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in tests or CI. Start with the linter to catch issues at author time.
What to do
- Enforce accessibility in the toolchain: add @angular-eslint/eslint-plugin-template (a11y rules), then assert with your test runner's axe binding (jest-axe, vitest-axe, cypress-axe or @axe-core/playwright) in tests, then gate axe/pa11y/Lighthouse in CI.
DM1 · Aggregate boundaries
DM4 · Rich vs anemic model
DM5 · Encapsulated state
DM6 · Domain ↔ infrastructure boundary
DM8 · Value-object opportunities
ES1 · Fold determinism
M1 · Documentation (README)
What to do
- Add a README to the 17 of 20 project(s) that lack one — worth up to 1.7 pts.
M2 · Architecture documentation
- No Architecture Decision Records found — no conventional ADR directory, no `NNNN-title.md` documents and nothing ADR-shaped by content. Design rationale recorded elsewhere (a design-notes tree, a mailing list, pull-request discussion) is not visible to this check and is not re-findable per decision, so a future maintainer cannot ask why one choice was made and get an answer.
What to do
- Record significant decisions one document per decision — dated, stating the context, the decision and its consequences — and keep them together wherever your design docs already live (a conventional `docs/adr/` tree with `NNNN-title.md` names is the most discoverable form).
M3 · Folder & project structure
M4 · Documentation accuracy
- README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists
- README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests
What to do
- Reconcile the README with reality: README advertises a RAG / ML engine, but no ML/RAG code or dependency exists; README advertises a microservices architecture, but the repo is a single project with no service manifests.
P1 · CI/CD gates
- A CI pipeline exists and the word "test" appears, but no explicit test-runner invocation (your stack's test command, or a test job) was matched — so either the gate runs tests through a step this pass could not recognise, or "test" is incidental here (a path, "latest", a reporter). Check the coverage dimensions first: if this repo has no test suite yet, that is the finding and this row follows from it. If a suite does exist, make the runner step explicit so the gate is unambiguous.
What to do
- Run the test suite in CI via an explicit runner step (`mvn test` for the toolchain this pipeline already uses) and gate merges on it.
P3 · Security & performance tooling
- No static application security testing detected. For this repository's stack, add spotbugs with find-sec-bugs (or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language) as a CI step.
What to do
- Add a SAST step to CI running what this repository's stack ships: spotbugs with find-sec-bugs — or `semgrep --config=auto`, which runs on any language — so a security regression fails the build instead of landing.
- Enable Dependabot/Renovate or a dependency-review gate.
- Add gitleaks/trufflehog in CI to block PRs that introduce committed secrets.
P4 · Deployment & Rollback
- Deployment is orchestrated by compose, but no service declares a `healthcheck:` and nothing pins a previous image to fall back to — the runtime can tell that the container is up, not that it is serving, so a bad release is harder to detect and reverse.
What to do
- Add a `healthcheck:` to the served compose service — probing the endpoint it already answers on where it has one — with `depends_on: condition: service_healthy` on whatever waits for it, and keep the deployed image tag immutable and recorded so rolling back is re-pointing at the previous tag rather than rebuilding.
- Add an approval/environment gate (required reviewers / protection rules) before production promotion.
P6 · Release Hygiene
- 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.
R1 · Type Safety
What to do
- Migrate the remaining .js/.jsx files to TypeScript.
R10 · Code Duplication
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-posts-routing.module.ts:15 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/projects/projects-routing.module.ts:15 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — blog-posts-routing.module.ts:15
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-post/blog-post.component.ts:11 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/projects/project/project.component.ts:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — blog-post.component.ts:11
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/shared/blog-posts.service.ts:2 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/projects/shared/projects.service.ts:2 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — blog-posts.service.ts:2
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/shared/alert/alert.service.ts:26 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/shared/alert/alert.service.ts:48 — all 2 copies are in the same file, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — alert.service.ts:26
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-post-list/blog-post-list.component.ts:11 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/projects/project-list/project-list.component.ts:11 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — blog-post-list.component.ts:11
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/blog-post-new/blog-post-new.component.ts:43 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/projects/project-new/project-new.component.ts:39 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 files, and the CITED SPAN is not a self-contained block — it runs from inside one construct into the next (the tail of a branch plus the head of the following one, a run of switch arms, the end of a declaration plus the list that follows it) rather than covering a whole unit. So do not lift these lines literally: no call can be substituted for a half-open construct. Extract the enclosing repeated UNIT instead — the whole function, component or branch these lines sit in — and where the repetition IS the construct (a run of switch arms, a stack of near-identical declarations) replace it with one table or registry looked up by key rather than a helper each arm calls. The copies still drift apart the first time only one of them is edited, which is why this is reported. — blog-post-new.component.ts:43
- monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/blog-posts/shared/blog-posts.service.ts:30 · monolithic/src/main/frontend/src/app/projects/shared/projects.service.ts:28 — the 2 copies are spread across 2 directories, so the shared home is a decision rather than an obvious spot: check first whether one of them already owns this behaviour, and otherwise put the extracted module somewhere all of the sites already reach rather than making one of them depend on another. — blog-posts.service.ts:30
What to do
- Extract the duplicated blocks into shared functions/components.
R2 · Cyclomatic Complexity
R3 · Large Files
R4 · Test Coverage
R6 · Tooling
- test ✓ · lint ✓ · typecheck ✗
What to do
- Add `tsc --noEmit` as package.json scripts and run them in CI.
R7 · Dead Code
R8 · Dependency Hygiene
- Declared in monolithic/src/main/frontend/package.json but never imported anywhere in that package or its workspace members — dead weight and attack surface. Verify against build tooling before removing. (×3)
What to do
- Remove unused dependencies, declare unlisted imports explicitly, and demote type-/test-only packages to devDependencies.
R9 · Circular Imports
WCAG coverage — what static analysis assessed
| Dimension | WCAG 2.2 A/AA criteria | Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| AC2 · Forms & labels | 1.3.1, 3.3.2, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC3 · Page structure | 1.4.4, 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 3.1.1, 4.1.2 | Partial signal |
| AC6 · Visual & motion safety | 1.4.3, 2.4.7 | Partial — literal CSS only |
| AC7 · A11y enforcement | enforcement — no page criterion | Enforcement posture (process) |
Reference — by lens
| Lens | Score | Rating | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Code Health | 92% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Architecture | 100% | Exemplary | Strongest area. |
| Maturity | 52% | Adequate — gated by D34, M2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Readiness | 46% | Weak — gated by P3 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Security | 74% | Adequate — gated by D31 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
| Domain Modelling | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Event Sourcing | 100% | Exemplary | Solid. |
| Accessibility | 48% | Weak — gated by AC2 | Capped at Fair by a Critical contributor — resolve it before relying on this lens. |
Not included — 75 check(s) not relevant to this codebase
- AC1 Text alternatives — No image/media element found in the parsed markup — AC1 not applicable here.
- AC4 Keyboard semantics — No interactive element found in the parsed markup — AC4 not applicable here.
- AC5 ARIA correctness — No ARIA usage found in the parsed markup — AC5 not applicable here.
- AX1 Captive dependencies — no DI registrations detected
- AX10 Code composition — not assessed — code composition is computed by ROLE over a document set 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
- AX2 Stateful singletons — no singleton implementations detected
- AX3 Project dependency cycles — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- AX4 Dependency direction — not assessed — project cycles and dependency direction are computed over a project-reference graph 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
- 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 — not assessed — test isolation is computed from a project graph (which projects are test projects, and what they reference) 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
- AX9 CQS / query purity — no CQRS query handlers detected — query purity is not applicable to this codebase
- AXB2 Runtime readiness — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- C1 Data Protection — Not assessed: these personal data 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 personal data controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C2 Access Controls — Not assessed: these authorization controls are read from 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 — Not assessed: these audit 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 audit controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C4 Data Retention — Not assessed: these retention controls are read from 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 retention controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- C5 Data-Subject Rights — Not assessed: these data-subject rights controls are read from 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 data-subject rights controls: it may implement them entirely in its own ecosystem. This is a gap in the analyzer's language coverage, not a finding about this repository.
- D10 Test Quality — ~624 lines of test source are present (.ts, .java) but the test-quality collector reads C# only, so skipped/assertion-free tests couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D11 Test Reliability — Test reliability not included
- D12 Dependency Hygiene — Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- D14 License Compliance — Not scored — this repository's package manifest is not parsed for licence data yet. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository's licenses are compliant (a Maven POM), which this pass does not parse yet — so this dimension asserts nothing about this repository's licensing in either direction.
- D16 Bus Factor — dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- D17 Explicit Debt — explicit-debt markers are read through a C# workspace today, so they were not read for this repository's language — this asserts nothing about how many markers the code carries. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- D18 Solution Shape — D18 scores the shape of a .NET solution; this repository has no .NET solution or project files, so the dimension does not apply.
- D19 Documentation Quality — LLM evaluation failed
- D20 ADR Quality — N/A — ADRs are expected on deployable products with a user-facing host, not consumed libraries; no ADR log is required here.
- D22 Internal API Consistency — No exposed public API
- D23 Boundary Type-Coupling — Production source is present (.java, .ts) but bounded contexts are resolved over the C#/VB project set, which exposed none, so context scope could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a verdict about this repository. Declaring the codebase's bounded contexts (≥2) would let cross-boundary type coupling be assessed — see the recommendation on this dimension for where. Declare them in `.codehealth/config.yaml` at the repository root (create it if absent), mapping each context name to the 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.
- D25 ADR Conformance — no ADRs to check
- D26 Project Cohesion — Project cohesion is assessed over the .NET project set; this target exposed no projects, so project size and spread could not be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D27 Navigability — No calls could be sampled, so navigability was not assessed — tracing effort is measured over resolved call sites and this target exposed none. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository.
- D30 Dependency Vulnerabilities — Not scored — no dependency manifest in a supported ecosystem was read for this repository. A gap in the analyzer's language coverage, NOT a finding that the repository is free of vulnerable dependencies (a Maven POM — not scanned yet) — where an OSV-supported manifest exists, dependency vulnerabilities for this repository are reported under D38 instead.
- D32 Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess.
- D36 Supply-chain Provenance & Signing — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release).
- D37 Vulnerability-disclosure Policy — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed.
- D38 OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities — Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
- 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.
- D5 Coupling — Inter-project coupling could not be assessed — no analyzable project graph was found for this repository. Not scored: a gap in the analyzer's reach, not a verdict about this repository. (Coupling here is Martin afferent/efferent/instability plus reference cycles across a project-reference graph, read today from .NET project files; other ecosystems' module graphs are not read yet.)
- D6 Cohesion (LCOM4) — Cohesion (LCOM4) is measured over a C#/VB class graph, and this repository's production source is .java, .ts, which this pass does not read — so no class could be assessed. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- D7 Architectural Integrity — no checkable ADRs, and no project-reference graph for the cycle pass to read — so this dimension makes no claim about dependency cycles in either direction (where this repository's language has an import-cycle lens, cycles are reported there). Architectural integrity not assessed
- D8 Code Coverage — Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
- D9 Test Distribution — Test source is present (.ts, .java) but the test-pyramid classifier reads C# only, so its unit/integration/BDD/E2E split couldn't be counted. Not scored — this is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- DM2 Strongly-typed ids — no id-bearing domain types detected — strongly-typed-id adoption not assessable
- DM3 Integration-event coupling — no integration events detected — coupling check not applicable
- DM7 Repository granularity — no repository abstraction detected (e.g. uses a document session)
- ED1 Event-Driven — not scored — this repository shows only 1 of the 3 signals this check looks for (3 event handler(s))
- ED5 Idempotency — no mutating command handlers or message consumers detected — idempotency check not applicable
- ES2 Immutable events — no persisted event types detected — immutability check not applicable
- ES3 PII in the event store — no persisted event types detected — PII-in-events check not applicable
- GD1 Unfinished & placeholder code — no source files
- 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
- P12 CI test-gate honesty — Reported, not scored — and nothing was matched here. The coverage check applies to any stack, but the checks for excluded tests, skipped tests and sleep-based synchronisation currently recognise only some ecosystems' test-runner idioms, so on a repository built with another stack the zeros below mean 'not checked', not 'clean'.
- P2 Observability — Observability was not assessed: this check reads a source model that does not carry this repository's product — because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model, or because its projects failed to load. Absence of a logging idiom this check recognises is NOT evidence that this repo lacks structured logging (it may log through its own ecosystem's logger). This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository.
- P5 DR & Backup — not evidenced — repo shows no backup/RTO/RPO controls; absence of evidence is not evidence of a working control
- P7 Outbound HTTP resilience — not measured — the application kind could not be determined for this repo
- P8 Schema migrations — not assessed — schema-migration practice is read from a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this check does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository
- P9 Domain vs controller coverage — no coverage report found on disk — produce a coverage report in a standard format (JaCoCo XML — `mvn jacoco:report`) into the repo working tree before the scan — a CI step is the usual place, since the artefact is commonly gitignored, or wire coverage collection into CI, to enable this cross-layer check
- PF1 Benchmark discipline — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF2 Allocation hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- PF3 Async & latency hygiene — Performance was not assessed: this lens reads a source model that was not loaded for this repository, because the repository is written in a language this lens does not yet model or because its projects failed to load. This is a gap in the analyzer, not a finding about this repository — in particular it is NOT a statement that this repo is unpackaged or performance-careless.
- R11 Import Boundaries — No recognizable feature-sliced/layered src layout — boundary rules not applicable.
- R5 Dependency Freshness — no package-lock.json — dependency freshness not measured (would require an npm lockfile); JS/npm CVEs are scored in D33 (JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities)
- 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.
- SC1 Supply-chain hygiene — Advisory — this card reports evidence and never carries a score, so there is nothing missing here.
- X1 Async correctness — 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
- X2 Cancellation propagation — 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
- X3 Exception handling — 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
- X4 Structured logging — 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
- X5 Nullable reference types — 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
Appendix A — Findings (grouped)
Issue — 13 finding(s)
- High IaC: DS-0002 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 configserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 monolithic/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 query-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High IaC: DS-0002 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/maven.yml:18
- High: github-actions-mutable-action-tag .github/workflows/maven.yml:20
Warning — 39 finding(s)
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 command-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 query-side-project-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 registry/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 monolithic/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 monolithic/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 command-side-blog-service/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 configserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 configserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 circuit-breaker/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:3
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_4 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:4
- Medium IaC: CKV_DOCKER_3 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile:1
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) command-side-blog/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/aggregate/BlogPostAggregate.java:99
- Duplicated block (6 lines × 2) command-side-blog-service/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/RestResponseEntityExceptionHandler.java:59
- dormant codebase — no living knowledge left to concentrate
- LLM evaluation failed
- Duplicated block (12 lines × 3) api-gateway/src/main/java/com/idugalic/apigateway/Application.java:29
- Duplicated block (11 lines × 2) documentation/src/main/java/com/idugalic/documentation/DocumentationApplication.java:128
- Duplicated block (10 lines × 3) command-side-blog-service/src/main/java/com/idugalic/commandside/blog/Application.java:22
- Duplicated block (5 lines × 2) documentation/src/main/java/com/idugalic/documentation/DocumentationApplication.java:100
Recommendation — 9 finding(s)
- Low IaC: DS-0005 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 adminserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0026 api-gateway/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- Low IaC: DS-0005 authserver/src/main/docker/Dockerfile
- Test reliability not included
- Further orphaned files (smaller)
- Scanner failed to run — not a clean result
- Coverage not included — suite not readable by the collector
Info — 2 finding(s)
- Dependency hygiene not measured — dependency manifest found but not parsed for hygiene
- No exposed public API
Appendix B — Reproduction & audit trail
| Dimension | Tool | Version | Command | Findings | Raw output |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D28 · Secrets (history) | gitleaks | — | gitleaks detect --no-banner --report-format json --report-path /dev/stdout --exit-code 0 --source . | 0 | artifacts/raw/gitleaks-history.json |
| D29 · Static Analysis (SAST) | semgrep | — | semgrep --config /opt/semgrep-rules/security-audit.yml --config /opt/semgrep-rules/owasp-top-ten.yml --json --quiet --timeout 0 --metrics off . | 2 | artifacts/raw/semgrep.json |
| D30 · Dependency Vulnerabilities | none (no readable dependency manifest) | — | none (no readable dependency manifest): not present in this environment | 0 | — |
| D31 · IaC & Container Security | trivy | — | trivy config --format json --quiet . | 73 | artifacts/raw/trivy-config.json |
| D32 · Data Compliance (PII/GDPR) | semgrep | — | semgrep: not applicable — No PII/GDPR-handling patterns detected (p/gdpr ruleset) — no data-compliance surface to assess. | 0 | — |
| D33 · JS/npm Dependency Vulnerabilities | trivy | — | trivy fs --scanners vuln --format json --quiet --severity CRITICAL,HIGH,MEDIUM,LOW --skip-dirs **/bin/** --skip-dirs **/obj/** . --skip-db-update | 0 | — |
| D36 · Supply-chain Provenance & Signing | provenance | — | provenance: not applicable — The CI pipeline builds and tests but publishes no released artifact — no package publish, container push, GitHub release or deployment step. Supply-chain provenance, signing and SBOM attest RELEASED artifacts, so there is nothing to attest here. Add them to the release pipeline when this repo starts shipping artifacts (a published package, a container image, a deployed service or a tagged release). | 0 | — |
| D37 · Vulnerability-disclosure Policy | disclosure | — | disclosure: not applicable — No vulnerability-disclosure policy file found (SECURITY.md/.markdown/.rst/.txt at root or under .github/.forgejo/.gitea/docs, .well-known/security.txt). A coordinated-disclosure policy may live off-repo, so this is not evidenced rather than failed. | 0 | — |
| D38 · OSV Dependency Vulnerabilities | osv-scanner | — | osv-scanner --format json --recursive . | 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 | — |